Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[beforHim]

I just thought about something.

belief and baptism are two different things. not just different like apples and oranges, or apples and rocks, or cats and oranges. But different like apples and thoughts, or love and oranges. One is material and requires the senses and such, one is immaterial and requires no specific circumstances. One must get an orange from the store, or a tree- one can get love anywhere. Cats come specifically from other cats, thinking comes from the human mind.

Belief can be done anywhere. baptism cannot. That is, if I'm locked in a room with no water, and I decide to give my life to Jesus, I can believe, but I can't be baptized for there is no water (and some would say no clergy). If I'm in a plane, in a nose dive, I can believe- but running to the restroom to get some water might not be an option. belief can be done anywhere, at anytime. Baptism cannot.



Implications, you ask? When we say "The person would've been baptized if the plane hadn't went down, we're not assuming that the person has no idea of God and baptism, but that God knows that sometime in his life, had his counterfactuals been lined up just right, he would've believed. Anyone, in this way, can get a "would've". Instead, we're assuming that the person really wants to be baptised. Whether or not the person's counterfactuals are lined up just right, they want to be baptized. They just might be blocked from the water (and clergy, for some).

Belief is different: the atheist in the plane who wants to believe and be baptised: we're not saying that "some day, if were rescued, his counterfactuals could line up just right and eventually he will believe". No, we're assuming he really wants to believe. But unlike baptism, when one wants truly to believe, one essentially does believe. that is, you can believe anywhere.


There was a truck example. handy says "the person is going to bible study expecting to be baptized, but then a truck smacks them." Ernest T. Bass says "the person is going to a bible study expecting to believe, but the a truck smacks them". The baptism one: the person really wants to be baptized, but can't because there's no water (and clergy, for some). But the person who wants to believe above: when one wants to believe, one does.

Now, when I say "when one decides, one believes", surely we can say "not necessarily". And when I say "baptism requires certain conditions", surely one could argue that the guy could've baptized himself at his house (if he needs no clergy or has some at his house).

the point;
a) we're not saying "Someday, they would've believed/been baptized, given they were lead just right, therefore they are saved".
b) we're saying the person truly wants to be baptized/wants to believe.
c) If a person truly wants to be baptized, they must- before they can be baptized- meet certain physical conditions. One must go somewhere, do something, get someone before they can do the deed.
d) if a person truly wants to believe, one must meet no physical conditions. One must simply believe right we're they're at, no place or other person required.

So really, to say "They would've been baptized/believed" as if they don't truly already want to now, and are trying to, is the wrong scenario. And then to compare the correct scenarios to each other also is wrong.

 

[beforHim]

Correct again. Baptism of desire is what the Thief on the cross recieved. A "deathbed conversion" is a more common form of this.

This is why we (me, at least, and most people I know of when I explain it to them) say faith alone saves.

 

[Webb]

beforHim writes: "This is why we (me, at least, and most people I know of when I explain it to them) say faith alone saves."

BUT---the only place in ALL the Bible where the words "faith alone" appear together is in James 2:24 and then it reads: "and not by faith only."

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Totally agree with your point here



I agree with your point here about free passes and all kinds of circumstances. I guess where we disagree (and are gonna have to "agree to disagree") is that were you see this as the stopping point, I still try and grapple this. In fact, since I entered into this thread, I've bee trying to recollect any type of Bible stories, bible verses, etc. that would address a person through no fault of their own not being able to be baptized.

I guess I see the NT God more like the OT God of Naaman, were Naaman did what he was told very reluctantly, and it wasn't sacrifice. And then Naaman basically got a free pass to sin by Elisha. see God as being able to "bend the rules", His own rules, if the situation calls for it, or if He just wills it.

Free passes? Yes. Just like Paul said, that under grace we can do all thing. Will people abuse this? As Paul said, yes. But that didn't stop Paul from preaching it. Abuse of a thing isn't what we judge the thing by.

Under the OT there were some things God 'tolerated', Acts 14:16. For example, God intended for one man to marry one woman for life, no divorce or polygamy.
Mt 19:8, "from the beginning it (divorce) was not so". And David had many wives. But God does not 'tolerate' things anymore..."And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:", Acts 17:30.

Grace does not allow a person to do as they please, grace does not allow one to live in disobedience to God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Baptizim is an act of obediance and and act of faith meaning one gets baptized because they have been saved. First you believe then you get baptized. anything that suggest salvation by us doing something or not doing something is wrong Christ did it all we accept it by faith then we floow Him into Baptizim as HE did and all of the Deciples. Baptizim is an action to an inward work.

First, the order of verses like Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38 put baptism BEFORE remission of sins, BEFORE saved not after salvation. Secondly, true biblical belief is a work, it is doing something, Jn 6:27ff, else it is dead. Doing nothing does not save.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I just thought about something.

belief and baptism are two different things. not just different like apples and oranges, or apples and rocks, or cats and oranges. But different like apples and thoughts, or love and oranges. One is material and requires the senses and such, one is immaterial and requires no specific circumstances. One must get an orange from the store, or a tree- one can get love anywhere. Cats come specifically from other cats, thinking comes from the human mind.

Belief can be done anywhere. baptism cannot. That is, if I'm locked in a room with no water, and I decide to give my life to Jesus, I can believe, but I can't be baptized for there is no water (and some would say no clergy). If I'm in a plane, in a nose dive, I can believe- but running to the restroom to get some water might not be an option. belief can be done anywhere, at anytime. Baptism cannot.



Implications, you ask? When we say "The person would've been baptized if the plane hadn't went down, we're not assuming that the person has no idea of God and baptism, but that God knows that sometime in his life, had his counterfactuals been lined up just right, he would've believed. Anyone, in this way, can get a "would've". Instead, we're assuming that the person really wants to be baptised. Whether or not the person's counterfactuals are lined up just right, they want to be baptized. They just might be blocked from the water (and clergy, for some).

Belief is different: the atheist in the plane who wants to believe and be baptised: we're not saying that "some day, if were rescued, his counterfactuals could line up just right and eventually he will believe". No, we're assuming he really wants to believe. But unlike baptism, when one wants truly to believe, one essentially does believe. that is, you can believe anywhere.


There was a truck example. handy says "the person is going to bible study expecting to be baptized, but then a truck smacks them." Ernest T. Bass says "the person is going to a bible study expecting to believe, but the a truck smacks them". The baptism one: the person really wants to be baptized, but can't because there's no water (and clergy, for some). But the person who wants to believe above: when one wants to believe, one does.

Now, when I say "when one decides, one believes", surely we can say "not necessarily". And when I say "baptism requires certain conditions", surely one could argue that the guy could've baptized himself at his house (if he needs no clergy or has some at his house).

the point;
a) we're not saying "Someday, they would've believed/been baptized, given they were lead just right, therefore they are saved".
b) we're saying the person truly wants to be baptized/wants to believe.
c) If a person truly wants to be baptized, they must- before they can be baptized- meet certain physical conditions. One must go somewhere, do something, get someone before they can do the deed.
d) if a person truly wants to believe, one must meet no physical conditions. One must simply believe right we're they're at, no place or other person required.

So really, to say "They would've been baptized/believed" as if they don't truly already want to now, and are trying to, is the wrong scenario. And then to compare the correct scenarios to each other also is wrong.

You have already said you do not believe baptism is necessary to be saved. THe last I have to say about this and as I have posted before, you will have to prove what you believe from the bible. Just making up various circumstances will never prove it. I can make up circumstances and make Christ's gospel unnecessary to salvation. I will debate book, chapter and verses with you about baptism, but arguing over 'circumstances' is pointless as I see it for it will never prove anything.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

beforHim writes: "This is why we (me, at least, and most people I know of when I explain it to them) say faith alone saves."

BUT---the only place in ALL the Bible where the words "faith alone" appear together is in James 2:24 and then it reads: "and not by faith only."

This is why I'm careful to say faith "apart from works".

"...to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." (Romans 4:6 NIV1984)

It takes away the weak support people use to say justification is not by 'faith alone'. They misunderstand (intentionally?) James' message to suggest that a person is declared righteous (justified) by faith and works and not by faith all by itself (apart from works).

Righteousness is credited to a person apart from the condition of a satisfactory effort of commanded work to solicit it. If circumcision is a work, as it most certainly is because that is what Paul uses to illustrate the truth about works that he teaches, then so is baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are 1) commanded by God, 2) not confined to works of the law, 3) performed on you or on your behalf, 4) presented as a condition for salvation, both being misunderstood as legalistic acts that must be completed to trigger salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Doing nothing does not save.

'Faith' that does nothing is what can not save.

It's interesting that some people use James' sermon about faith and works to prove baptism is necessary for salvation...and then insist baptism is not a work.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't see how the recepient of the baptism "works" or earns anything, especially with infant baptism. This is pure Grace. So in a very real sense, infant, water baptism is salvation by Grace alone.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Are we not co authors in our salvation? Does faith have anything to do with grace? I have a sour spot with catholics and the idea of cheap grace so let's stick to adult baptism ok. Regardless, an adult comes to the baptismal pool through faith in christ, and Gods grace is administered. Thus, it is Christ working in us as we come to him through faith. Thus, isn't baptism a good work? After all, an adult is not tricked into baptism, they have to agree and submit to it don't they? Where then is the offence in calling baptism a good work? Are we not commanded to do good works?

 

[Webb]

So, Jethro, is baptism a work of human merit, human righteousness? Or, is baptism the work of God?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

'Faith' that does nothing is what can not save.

It's interesting that some people use James' sermon about faith and works to prove baptism is necessary for salvation...and then insist baptism is not a work.

Faith that does nothing is the same as faith alone. I don't think I have ever used James 2 as proof that baptism is necesary to salvation or ever said that baptism is a work that man does.

 

[Stan53]

Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

No I don't believe the Bible teaches that. It does teach water baptism is to follow salvation as an outward sign of our being affectually born again in Christ. In my view, water baptism is just as important as being infilled by the Holy Spirit as Acts 2 demonstrated, but although BOTH are important in regards to obeying God, they are NOT a REQUIREMENT of Salvation.

Romans 10:10, For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

:shades

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, Jethro, is baptism a work of human merit, human righteousness? Or, is baptism the work of God?

Define each as you understand them, and then I will answer your question.

 

[dadof10]

This is why we (me, at least, and most people I know of when I explain it to them) say faith alone saves.

Again, I agree. Faith alone CAN save, but it's not the norm. If a person is on his deathbed, God will accept his conversion (faith alone). This is not the norm for most people. You (I assume) and I have been called well before our "moment of death", so MORE is REQUIRED of us to be saved, and REMAIN (for lack of a better word) saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Faith that does nothing is the same as faith alone.

That is indeed how James uses 'faith alone'. A man can not be justified (shown to be righteous) by his faith alone. That only makes sense. How can someone show themselves to have been made righteous by faith, apart from works, if he does not somehow show that declaration of righteous he got (by faith apart from works) by what he does? A faith that is unable to validate itself in what a person does is a faith that can not save. That is James' argument. And it is entirely true.

Paul's argument is that a person is justified (made righteous) by what he believes about God's forgiveness, and not by the merit of righteous deeds, but "apart from works" of righteousness. This does not mean good works do not, and don't have to, accompany justification by faith (apart from the merit of works). It only means we are not made righteous by our works, but by our faith..alone, apart from our works. From there we are shown to be righteous (also called being 'justified') by what we do.

I don't think I have ever used James 2 as proof that baptism is necesary to salvation or ever said that baptism is a work that man does.

It was directed to those who do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This matter of baptism is the same for any commanded obedience of God. The reason a person does not do it is what determines if they are condemned for not doing it.

The argument can be made for the other obediences that must accompany faith for a person to be saved by that faith. James uses the required obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself' as the obedience to illustrate whether one has saving faith or not. We are not saved until we do that, nor are we, from a purely legalistic viewpoint, condemned if we don't. The reason we don't obey God in 'love your neighbor as yourself' determines if we are saved or not saved in regard to that required obedience.

When a person's disobedience to the required commands of God, like 'love your neighbor as yourself', represents a willful and conscious rejection of the forgiveness of God, that is when a person is condemned by that disobedience. So you have to know why a person is refusing baptism, or any other 'required' obedience, to know whether it's a matter of salvation for them or not.

 

[dadof10]

This is why I'm careful to say faith "apart from works".

"...to whom God credits righteousness apart from works." (Romans 4:6 NIV1984)

It takes away the weak support people use to say justification is not by 'faith alone'. They misunderstand (intentionally?) James' message to suggest that a person is declared righteous (justified) by faith and works and not by faith all by itself (apart from works).

Weak? Please. Those who believe as you do have to twist the words of James so as to be barely even words. If James is talking about "said faith" or a faith that doesn't justify (as you have written before), then Abraham has "said faith" (or the faith of "demons") acording to your arguments. And don't get me started again on Abraham's three justifications.

Righteousness is credited to a person apart from the condition of a satisfactory effort of commanded work to solicit it. If circumcision is a work, as it most certainly is because that is what Paul uses to illustrate the truth about works that he teaches, then so is baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are 1) commanded by God, 2) not confined to works of the law, 3) performed on you or on your behalf, 4) presented as a condition for salvation, both being misunderstood as legalistic acts that must be completed to trigger salvation.

Let's rephrase your paragraph for illustration:

Righteousness is credited to a person apart from the condition of a satisfactory effort of commanded work to solicit it. If circumcision is a work, as it most certainly is because that is what Paul uses to illustrate the truth about works that he teaches, then so is faith. Both circumcision and faith are 1) commanded by God, 2) not confined to works of the law, 3) performed on you or on your behalf, (this one, not so much, but performed BY you, yes) 4) presented as a condition for salvation, both being misunderstood as legalistic acts that must be completed to trigger salvation (DEFINATELY).

So, "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior" is a work?

 

[dadof10]

Are we not co authors in our salvation? Does faith have anything to do with grace? I have a sour spot with catholics and the idea of cheap grace so let's stick to adult baptism ok.

Cheap Grace? It's not cheap, it's free. Isn't that the definition of Grace?

Regardless, an adult comes to the baptismal pool through faith in christ, and Gods grace is administered. Thus, it is Christ working in us as we come to him through faith. Thus, isn't baptism a good work?

Yes, in the same way faith is, "Christ working in us".

After all, an adult is not tricked into baptism, they have to agree and submit to it don't they? Where then is the offence in calling baptism a good work? Are we not commanded to do good works?

Amen. My point is NOT that baptism is not a good work, it's that Paul is speaking of specifically works of the law, which do not include baptism, good works, charity, etc. Paul is not teaching justification by faith alone, so Paul is not contradicting Peter when Peter says baptism "saves you".

 

[dadof10]

Faith that does nothing is the same as faith alone. I don't think I have ever used James 2 as proof that baptism is necesary to salvation or ever said that baptism is a work that man does.

Me either.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior" is a work?

What aspect of 'accepting' are you talking about?

If you mean walking an aisle...that did not save you. Confessing with your mouth did not save you either. The faith that caused you to do that...that is what saved you...all by itself, alone, apart from the works, even the work it motivated.

I know where you're probably going next, so here, I'll post the scripture for you:

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:27-29 NIV1984)


I know what point you're trying to make. Just be prepared to show me where Jesus in any way shape or form is teaching people that salvation is secured by the literal works of baptism, or circumcision, or 'love your neighbor as yourself', etc., and not just by believing alone. We 'get' Jesus (the 'food' that endures to eternal life--see text) by believing, not by circumcision, not by baptism, not even by 'love your neighbor as yourself'. He's using 'food' and 'working' (to get the food to live), metaphors earthbound people understand, to illustrate what we have to 'do' to get Jesus/eternal life. We get him by believing, not by the work we accomplish.