Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Ernest T. Bass]

Are you sure these cover everyone? Or the all who happened to be there at the time...

Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

I read the above in 3 gospels and didn't see a record of baptism.

Act 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Act 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.


Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.





Do we have scripture record of these folks being baptized?
Maybe you dont believe being touch or healed by the Lord is enough,to call these folks Christian... Or it was at this time or that.

I disagree

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Seems odd God did not tell Paul here, to include baptism.

The event in Acts 3:6,7 had to do with one being healed, not saved.

The events in Matt and Luke took place under the OT before the church came into existence and Christ's baptism of v38 came into effect.

Mt 9:6 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

WHile Jesus was ON EARTH He had the authority to forgive the sins of those whom He thought was deserving. Jesus is no longer onearth, He ascended back to heaven some 2000 years ago leaving behind His word, the bible, as His authority on earth and His word requires baptism to be saved.


Romans chapter 6, the Romans were baptized. Paul said nothing about repentance in Rom 10:9,10 so does that mean one does not have to repent of sins to be saved cf Lk 13:3,5?

Lastly, in Acts 2 Peter preached the saving gospel message (Rom 1:16) to those lost Jews and v41 says "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls."

Receiving the gospel message is the same as being baptized therefore not being baptized is the same as rejecting the gospel message as most Jews rejected Peter's words thereby rejected being baptized. As long as one remains unbaptized he is rejecting the gospel and not a Christian.

Again, I asked you in a prior post if your sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ, then how did Christ's blood wash away your sins, and why your sins and not everyone's sins? What distinguished you from others that your sins are washed away but their sins are not?

You have, for some reason, avoided answering this question. Why?

 

[handy]

I am completely baffled by all this hoo-hah.

God says 'Get baptized'.

Everybody in the Acts got baptized.

Why all this argument?

I don't know.

 

[beforHim]

Few questions:

Is the "baptism for salvation" crowd saying that IF baptism THEN saved?
Or are they saying IF belief AND baptism, THEN saved?
Is there a chronological order?
Note:I'm not arguing one way or another, just asking for clarification. There's been a TON of posts, and I read them all in the past 10 minutes, so my brain is a little jiggly at the moment :p Just figured some succinct clarification could help.



Also-
What if one DID repent, and one DID believe, but upon enetring the baptismal pool, they slip on the steps and break their neck before entering the water?
Or, what if the preacher puts them under, says the words, but when the guy I under the water, they (in whatever way, for whatever reason) die then?
-or-
Similar to the last scenario: I've heard stories (and no doubt some others of us have) about Christian in places such as a chinese jail, leading others to Christ. Those others accept Christ, but then die in the jail and never have a chance to be baptised. They never get to leave their cell, and they get only a few cups (if that) of water a day for water.

And what about people who repent and believe on their death bed? If my brother- or sister-n-law (please pray for thei salvation): were in a car wreck, made a confession of faith, were about to definitely die, then should we try and rush some water over to her asap? What if she died before we got back?




Do these conversion (assuming they are true conversions, which only God can see) "not count" for whatever reason? Just wondering what we do with these scenarios, IF baptismal regeneration is true.

 

[handy]

It was not an act of righteousness that in and of itself secured salvation, just as baptism is not an act of righteousness that in and of itself secures salvation. But that is exactly how the Israelites understood the passage in Genesis. Paul argues the point in Romans to those of the day who, like some in this thread regarding baptism, insisted it was a legalistic act that must be completed for one to be saved:

"...he (Abraham) received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he (already) had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." (Romans 4: NIV parenthesis mine)

His point is, Abraham was already accredited to God through his faith, his circumcision being the sign of the righteousness he already had by faith, apart from works. This is the foundation of Paul's entire ministry. Salvation is given in response to faith in God's promise, specifically the promise of a Son who inherits our blessing for us, not in response to doing something righteous, or having it done to you.

Paul even goes so far to say that circumcision is not even a required expression of saving faith (like 'love your neighbor as yourself' is, for example).

"25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker." (Romans 2:25-37 NIV)

Here we see him saying that if you keep the requirements of the law (obviously talking about the moral law) but are not circumcised you will condemn the man who is circumcised, yet who does not keep the moral law. In other words, circumcision is not an expected and obligatory expression of saving faith that must be present in a believers life for his faith to be validated as real (as is true for 'love your neighbor as yourself'). I say this is true of baptism, too. I'm not talking about the stubborn willed person who just won't do it. I'm talking about baptism NOT being a legalistic check on a scorecard that must be checked off before one is saved.

We gotta wonder why a professing believer would not want to get baptized, but the reasons I've heard are because they don't want to be seen in runny makeup, or have boogers hanging out of their nose, or have clingy wet clothes pressed onto their bodies for all to see. Pretty innocent reasons for inquiring if you ask me. These have nothing to do with resisting God out of stubborn unbelief.

I guess what caught my eye was the phrase "really wasn't in and of itself a required act of righteousness to be in covenant with God despite what the OT taught?"

Because circumcision most certainly was a 'required' act of righteousness under the Old Covenant. As the text you quote says, circumcision was the sign of the seal of righteousness that came through faith... but circumcision was absolutely required.

Not any longer, and Paul's words to the Roman's reflect the new covenant, not the old. Circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant with God.

But, under the Old Covenant, circumcision most certainly was required. Absolutely.

You said "It was not an act of righteousness that in and of itself secured salvation, just as baptism is not an act of righteousness that in and of itself secures salvation."

May I ask, whom do you think is proposing that baptism, in and of itself secures salvation?

I mean, on this thread, in this discussion? Granted, I was quite busy over the weekend and have lost track of all the posts... but really, is there anyone here that is saying that baptism is, in and of itself, secures salvation?

 

[beforHim]

May I ask, whom do you think is proposing that baptism, in and of itself secures salvation?
I mean, on this thread, in this discussion? Granted, I was quite busy over the weekend and have lost track of all the posts... but really, is there anyone here that is saying that baptism is, in and of itself, secures salvation?

I read over all the posts rather quickly, but it seems that Ernest T. Bass is definitely arguing for this. Unless, you're saying, "No one's arguing that if yu take a self professing God-hater, force them into some water, and pronounce the words, then they're save". 2 Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing anything like this.

But definitely it's being argued that one could truly repent, truly believe, truly love Jesus with all their heart, truly do works in accordance with repentance, yet upon them not being baptised (for what reason they are not is yet to be clarified) they are not truly saved. Everything but the dunk is done (again, we have yet to ascertain why the dunk is not being done, to clarifiy different reasons it would not be done), hence they are not saved/justified/going to heaven/whatever terminology.

 

[handy]

Few questions:

Is the "baptism for salvation" crowd saying that IF baptism THEN saved?
Or are they saying IF belief AND baptism, THEN saved?
Is there a chronological order?


Also-
What if one DID repent, and one DID believe, but upon enetring the baptismal pool, they slip on the steps and break their neck before entering the water?
Or, what if the preacher puts them under, says the words, but when the guy I under the water, they (in whatever way, for whatever reason) die then?

Also-
Similar to the last scenario: I've heard stories (and no doubt some others of us have) about Christian in places such as a chinese jail, leading others to Christ. Those others accept Christ, but then die in the jail and never have a chance to be baptised. They never get to leave their cell, and they get only a few cups (if that) of water a day for water.

And what about people who repent and believe on their death bed? If my sister-n-law: were in a car wreck, made a confession of faith, were about to definitely die, then should we try and rush some water over to her asap? What if she died before we got back?




Do these conversion (assuming they are true conversions, which only God can see) "not count" for whatever reason?

Hi beforeHim and welcome to the fray!

As to your questions: Is the "baptism for salvation" crowd saying that IF baptism THEN saved?
Or are they saying IF belief AND baptism, THEN saved?
Is there a chronological order?

I believe that Scriptures teach us that those who are saved follow the pattern of belief, repent, then baptism. That pattern is repeated over and over and is so established, as I said before, I can't understand the "hoo-haw".

However, I've mentioned before (and this has been a very busy discussion) that I do believe God, in His mercy and grace, certainly understands that there are times when a person who has believed and has repented, might not get baptized before their death. It happens. I believe the thief on the cross is an example to us for this very reason, to reassure us that for those who did die in belief and repentance, that they are assured a place in Paradise, even though they are not baptized, because a bomb blew up or they got hit by a truck on their way to their baptismal service.

That said, your questions regarding baptizing those who are about to die...

I would say, absolutely... I think one of the things that Satan has been so successful in muddying the waters regarding baptism, is that we have to have this very formalized routine about it. Baptism requires two things, a believing, repentive heart, and water. That's it. If someone is dying or, if for some reason they are physically unable to be submersed, if there is a water bottle handy... baptize them.

 

[handy]

I read over all the posts rather quickly, but it seems that Ernest T. Bass is definitely arguing for this. Unless, you're saying, "No one's arguing that if yu take a self professing God-hater, force them into some water, and pronounce the words, then they're save". 2 Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing anything like this.

But definitely it's being argued that one could truly repent, truly believe, truly love Jesus with all their heart, truly do works in accordance with repentance, yet upon them not being baptised (for what reason they are not is yet to be clarified) they are not truly saved. Everything but the dunk is done (again, we have yet to ascertain why the dunk is not being done, to clarifiy different reasons it would not be done), hence they are not saved/justified/going to heaven/whatever terminology.

Unless, you're saying, "No one's arguing that if yu take a self professing God-hater, force them into some water, and pronounce the words, then they're save".

I did want to clarify that, because that was the way it was reading to me.

I would agree that it's really important to establish why the "dunk" isn't being done....

If it's because the make-up would run, then one must seriously question the belief of the person... or perhaps the teaching they received regarding baptism. I think reasons like Jethro listed, make-up, boogers and clingy wet clothes would indicate that someone has been taught that baptism is a purely symbolic act... therefore not really all that important, not worth being seen before the congregation in a wet, disheveled state.

If one knew that God expects us to be baptized and baptized right away, then I doubt one would be refusing to be baptized for such "innocent" reasons.

But, as for any Christian, who has gone not even years, but months or even weeks without being baptized? There is either a lack of proper teaching or a question regarding the belief they have. All believers should be baptized and baptized soon after their belief and repentance.

Either that, or the church they've associated themselves aren't doing baptisms properly... It truly irked me that, when my son wanted to be baptized, the church we were going to at the time said that the next "baptismal service" was going to be in about 6 months... . We wound up leaving that church anyway because my husband wanted to go back to the denomination of his youth... who also made my son wait for about another three months.

That was one thing I questioned our pastor about when we were going though classes to join the church... He said that he would baptize anyone who wanted to be baptized during the next service...

 

[beforHim]

Hi beforeHim and welcome to the fray!

Thx for the welcome

I believe that Scriptures teach us that those who are saved follow the pattern of belief, repent, then baptism. That pattern is repeated over and over and is so established, as I said before, I can't understand the "hoo-haw".

The "hoo-haw" is that it sounds as if the "baptismal regenration" crowd is saying "God has required a physical act (aka work) for one to be saved". Thus, we are saved by a physical act. I thikn that's the rub.

However, I've mentioned before (and this has been a very busy discussion) that I do believe God, in His mercy and grace, certainly understands that there are times when a person who has believed and has repented, might not get baptized before their death. It happens. I believe the thief on the cross is an example to us for this very reason, to reassure us that for those who did die in belief and repentance, that they are assured a place in Paradise, even though they are not baptized, because a bomb blew up or they got hit by a truck on their way to their baptismal service.

Sounds good to me. But Ernest T. Bass (whom you, obviously, have no "alliance" with, or no control over, or anything like that)- the way he is arguing sure makes it sound the opposite.

I would say, absolutely... I think one of the things that Satan has been so successful in muddying the waters regarding baptism, is that we have to have this very formalized routine about it. Baptism requires two things, a believing, repentive heart, and water. That's it. If someone is dying or, if for some reason they are physically unable to be submersed, if there is a water bottle handy... baptize them.

I agree that Satan- and us humans!- muddy the waters. But the point here I was making was the same point you made in your answer above, that is that God recognizes legitimate cases of no baptism, because of death happening before baptism.

We seem to be in agreement, but I would counter: While highly unlikley, it is totally possible that death could happen and water be completely absent and impossible to get/get to.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I read over all the posts rather quickly, but it seems that Ernest T. Bass is definitely arguing for this. Unless, you're saying, "No one's arguing that if yu take a self professing God-hater, force them into some water, and pronounce the words, then they're save". 2 Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing anything like this.

But definitely it's being argued that one could truly repent, truly believe, truly love Jesus with all their heart, truly do works in accordance with repentance, yet upon them not being baptised (for what reason they are not is yet to be clarified) they are not truly saved. Everything but the dunk is done (again, we have yet to ascertain why the dunk is not being done, to clarifiy different reasons it would not be done), hence they are not saved/justified/going to heaven/whatever terminology.

For further clarification, the bible plainly says that baptism saves...baptism doth also now save us...". 2Pet 3:21.

Does baptism alone/does baptism in and of itself save? Absolutely not! God saves, but God has chosen to use baptism as the means by which He saves so it is in that sense Peter says baptism saves.

In Acts 2 Peter told his listeners to "save yourselves". Could they save themselves by themselves? No, they could save themselves in the sense by choosing of their own will in obeying God's means of saving by being baptized for remission of sins

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Few questions:

Is the "baptism for salvation" crowd saying that IF baptism THEN saved?
Or are they saying IF belief AND baptism, THEN saved?
Is there a chronological order?
Note:I'm not arguing one way or another, just asking for clarification. There's been a TON of posts, and I read them all in the past 10 minutes, so my brain is a little jiggly at the moment :p Just figured some succinct clarification could help.

Mk 16:16 puts belief before baptism.

Also-
What if one DID repent, and one DID believe, but upon enetring the baptismal pool, they slip on the steps and break their neck before entering the water?
Or, what if the preacher puts them under, says the words, but when the guy I under the water, they (in whatever way, for whatever reason) die then?
-or-
Similar to the last scenario: I've heard stories (and no doubt some others of us have) about Christian in places such as a chinese jail, leading others to Christ. Those others accept Christ, but then die in the jail and never have a chance to be baptised. They never get to leave their cell, and they get only a few cups (if that) of water a day for water.

And what about people who repent and believe on their death bed? If my brother- or sister-n-law (please pray for thei salvation): were in a car wreck, made a confession of faith, were about to definitely die, then should we try and rush some water over to her asap? What if she died before we got back?




Do these conversion (assuming they are true conversions, which only God can see) "not count" for whatever reason? Just wondering what we do with these scenarios, IF baptismal regeneration is true.

--I am not going to be sitting in the judgment seat on judgment day judging men, I can only relate what the bible says as to how or by what standard men will be judged.

--The NT does not teach for us today death-bed salvation, nowhere.

--Generally people who make up these "hard circumstances" do not believe that baptism is necessary under ANY circumstance let alone a hard case circumstance. Why dont they just prove from the bible that baptism is not necessary under ANY circumstance and not try and get around it with some kind of hard circumstance?


--Lastly, am I going to be judged by what God's word says or will I be judged by "hard circumstances"? Hard circustances do not change God's word for God's word is unchangable and everlasting. If a hard circumstance changes what God has said about baptism, then give me time and I can come up with all kinds of hard circumstances and change what God's word says just about any issue.

People who do not think baptism is necessary to be saved, they at least think one must believe to be saved. I can get rid of belief with a hard circumstance. An atheist is on an ariplane and the engines have all failed and the plane is nose-diving towards the ground at a high rate of speed and will crash within seconds. The atheist begins to think that there is some "higher power" and there is some kind of life after death but dies in the crash not knowing who or what to believe. He had every intention of belieivng but just ran out of time just like some may have intended to be baptized but just ran out of time. If we are going to excuse baptism under ANY and ALL conditions because of a hard circumstance then we are going to have to excuse believing under ANY and ALL conditions too.


So we have effectively gotten rid of belief and baptism from being necessary to being saved by means of "hard circumstances" and rendered Jesus words of Mk 16:16 useless. Give me a little more time and I think I can rewrite and change the whole bible using 'hard circumstances'.









----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: you need to define what you mean by "baptismal regeneration" for it can mean different things to different people:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/416-the-matter-of-baptismal-regeneration

 

[farouk]

For further clarification, the bible plainly says that baptism saves...baptism doth also now save us...". 2Pet 3:21.

Does baptism alone/does baptism in and of itself save? Absolutely not! God saves, but God has chosen to use baptism as the means by which He saves so it is in that sense Peter says baptism saves.

ETB:

...but: the same passage says that it's a matter of the conscience being cleared, this is a spiritual matter by faith in Christ's work at the Cross for sinners.

Also: the same passage refers to the ordinance of baptism as a 'figure', a symbol.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

ETB:

...but: the same passage says that it's a matter of the conscience being cleared, this is a spiritual matter by faith in Christ's work at the Cross for sinners.

Also: the same passage refers to the ordinance of baptism as a 'figure', a symbol.

Peter tells us what baptism is NOT for, it is not for putting away the filth of the flesh but baptism is for a clear conscience towards God. As I think I noted earlier in this thread, in Acts 2 Peter preached the gospel to the Jews who murdered the Messiah with their wicked hands. Those words of the gospel 'pricked their heart" that is, those words made their conscience guilty of that sin so much so that they asked Peter what they must do. Peter's ANSWER to them was to be BAPTIZED for remission of sins, baptism would remit thier sins getting rid of their guilty conscience toward God, so baptism is the answer.

In 1 Pet 3:21 from the KJV "the like figure" is from antitypos meaning anti-type. The anti-type is a mirror reflection of the type. The OT type is eight souls being saved by water, v20. The NT anti-type or mirror reflection of that OT type is us being saved by water baptism. God used the flood water as the dividing line between those who were saved and those who were lost just as God uses the water of baptism as the dividing line between the saved and lost.

 

[farouk]

...but it's symbolic. It's the blood of Christ that actually saves (Hebrews 1).

 

[handy]

...but it's symbolic. It's the blood of Christ that actually saves (Hebrews 1).

farouk, could you supply the exact texts where it says baptism is symbolic and that it is Christ's blood that saves? I've looked through 1 Peter 3 and Hebrews 1 and cannot find what you're referring to.

 

[beforHim]

--The NT does not teach for us today death-bed salvation, nowhere.

So you're saying that from a biblical standpoint, someone cannot be saved on their death-bed? I don't want to give easy passes, just sin and sin until the last moment, then just cry out and "Phew, I'm good" *croak*. But surely we can't claim it to be impossible for someone to gain salvation in their last moments on earth, specifically the "death-bed" scenario I mentioned here.

. . ."hard circumstances" . . ."hard circumstances"? . . .Hard circumstances . . ."hard circumstances"

If we are going to excuse baptism under ANY and ALL conditions because of a hard circumstance then we are going to have to excuse believing under ANY and ALL conditions too.

Dude, I'm totally with you. In fact, often will argue this way against rigid funemantalist-type theologizing. I most heartily agree with the point you're getting across. The problem is, though- for both me and you and everyone: these "hard circumstances" do indeed exist. While we can, as C.S. Lewis said, "you explain and explain, and end up explaining away your own explanation", we still need to face these "hard circumstances" head on. God would not, I don't think, tie His hands and say "Well, I made a rule, and even though this is a hard circumstance, well, Sucks to Be You!"

 

[handy]

Mk 16:16 puts belief before baptism.



--I am not going to be sitting in the judgment seat on judgment day judging men, I can only relate what the bible says as to how or by what standard men will be judged.

--The NT does not teach for us today death-bed salvation, nowhere.

--Generally people who make up these "hard circumstances" do not believe that baptism is necessary under ANY circumstance let alone a hard case circumstance. Why dont they just prove from the bible that baptism is not necessary under ANY circumstance and not try and get around it with some kind of hard circumstance?


--Lastly, am I going to be judged by what God's word says or will I be judged by "hard circumstances"? Hard circustances do not change God's word for God's word is unchangable and everlasting. If a hard circumstance changes what God has said about baptism, then give me time and I can come up with all kinds of hard circumstances and change what God's word says just about any issue.

People who do not think baptism is necessary to be saved, they at least think one must believe to be saved. I can get rid of belief with a hard circumstance. An atheist is on an ariplane and the engines have all failed and the plane is nose-diving towards the ground at a high rate of speed and will crash within seconds. The atheist begins to think that there is some "higher power" and there is some kind of life after death but dies in the crash not knowing who or what to believe. He had every intention of belieivng but just ran out of time just like some may have intended to be baptized but just ran out of time. If we are going to excuse baptism under ANY and ALL conditions because of a hard circumstance then we are going to have to excuse believing under ANY and ALL conditions too.


So we have effectively gotten rid of belief and baptism from being necessary to being saved by means of "hard circumstances" and rendered Jesus words of Mk 16:16 useless. Give me a little more time and I think I can rewrite and change the whole bible using 'hard circumstances'.









----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: you need to define what you mean by "baptismal regeneration" for it can mean different things to different people:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/416-the-matter-of-baptismal-regeneration

I hear what you're saying, and I agree pretty much with most of it. But, I don't think we can be hard line and say that if someone isn't baptized, then they cannot be saved, if they believed at the final moments of their life here.

Jesus didn't say, "He who has disbelieved or is not baptized shall be condemned."

We also know that it is appointed for men to die once and after death comes judgement. (Hebrews 9:27)

Since judgement comes after death, no one is judged condemned before death.

Also, we see in Hebrews 4 that God is indeed the God of "second chances" whilst here on earth:

Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, “Today,†saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,“ Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.†Hebrews 4:6-7


I wouldn't want to say to a dying man, "Sorry, you're on your way out now. Too late for you, you'll be going to hell for sure, even if you now believe and repent and would be baptized if you could get off that death bed of yours..."

 

[farouk]

farouk, could you supply the exact texts where it says baptism is symbolic and that it is Christ's blood that saves? I've looked through 1 Peter 3 and Hebrews 1 and cannot find what you're referring to.

handy:

The 1 Peter 3 passage refers to it as a 'figure'.

Hebrews 1. 3 says that the Lord Jesus 'by himself purged our sins'; it is faith in His sin atoning work at the Cross where He shed His blood so that the believer's sins could be purged and cleansed, that saves. Baptism is representative of the believer's association with that death at the cross; it's not the essence of the saving work itself.

 

[handy]

farouk, I used a parallel bible and found "figure". The KJV uses "figure" but the "figure" it's referring to is the figure of Noah on the ark being a symbol of baptism, not that baptism is a symbol in of itself.

Many versions use "corresponds" as opposed to "figure" and I believe corresponds is the better word here.... Baptism corresponds to Noah and the ark, for Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood in the ark, and we are saved through the waters of baptism, as baptism is our burial in Christ and His work.

But the "symbol" is Noah and the great Flood, which is a symbol of baptism.

I don't believe that the Bible anywhere states that baptism is a symbol of anything.

Hebrews 1:3 states, "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..."

Jesus did indeed make the purification of sins, but nonetheless we still are to be baptized. It is how the purification of sins is effected in us, as Paul said:

3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

So you're saying that from a biblical standpoint, someone cannot be saved on their death-bed? I don't want to give easy passes, just sin and sin until the last moment, then just cry out and "Phew, I'm good" *croak*. But surely we can't claim it to be impossible for someone to gain salvation in their last moments on earth, specifically the "death-bed" scenario I mentioned here.



Dude, I'm totally with you. In fact, often will argue this way against rigid funemantalist-type theologizing. I most heartily agree with the point you're getting across. The problem is, though- for both me and you and everyone: these "hard circumstances" do indeed exist. While we can, as C.S. Lewis said, "you explain and explain, and end up explaining away your own explanation", we still need to face these "hard circumstances" head on. God would not, I don't think, tie His hands and say "Well, I made a rule, and even though this is a hard circumstance, well, Sucks to Be You!"

We can know from the bible that God will do what is right, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?", Gen 18. But God will also not constantly change just to accomodate every person's various and sundry situations. If God did, then the bible is a completely useless book for we would not be guided by God's word but by circumstances. God's word is truth, not circumstances. I gave you an example of how easy it would be to make belief non-essential to salvation.

2 Cor 2:6 "...behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)". No one is promised tomorrow that is why today is the day they must obey the gospel.

One will have to prove from the bible baptism is not necessary to salvation not by circumstances. Mt 22:15 "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him (Christ) in his talk." God has already made baptism essential to salvation so who would try to entangle God in what He has already said with "circumstances"? Who will try and put God between "two horns of dilemma" and say God either goes along with my idea that baptism is not essential or else God is mean-spirited and uncaring towards those who are on their deathbed? Not me.

Psa 119:105 "Various circumstances are a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." I don't think so.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I hear what you're saying, and I agree pretty much with most of it. But, I don't think we can be hard line and say that if someone isn't baptized, then they cannot be saved, if they believed at the final moments of their life here.

Jesus didn't say, "He who has disbelieved or is not baptized shall be condemned."

Jesus did not have to say this for it is redundant. In Mk 16:16a Jesus made belief a prerequsite to baptism so an unbeliving person cannot be scripturally baptized. Therefore when Jesus said "he that believeth not" this automatically includes "not baptized".

We also know that it is appointed for men to die once and after death comes judgement. (Hebrews 9:27)

Since judgement comes after death, no one is judged condemned before death.

Also, we see in Hebrews 4 that God is indeed the God of "second chances" whilst here on earth:

Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,“ Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.” Hebrews 4:6-7


I wouldn't want to say to a dying man, "Sorry, you're on your way out now. Too late for you, you'll be going to hell for sure, even if you now believe and repent and would be baptized if you could get off that death bed of yours..."

You nor me have the power or authority to change God's plan of pardon for this dying man.

You say "Since judgement comes after death, no one is judged condemned before death."

Jn 3:18 " He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

So what if one wanted to believe but fell into a coma and died before they had a chance to believe and died in a state of "believeth not"?