Is baptism essential to salvation?

[EricTheBaptist]

Eric: Then yoru must argue with Jesus, Peter and Paul and the Holy Spirit who inspired Peter and Paul.

1 Corinthians 1:17 tells us that Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel."

No need to argue the scripture tells us that it is not required.

 

[Webb]

But Paul did baptize ( I Cor.1:14-16 ), was he disobedient? If so where is his sorrow and repentance?

You wrote:''No need to argue the scripture tells us that it is not required." Please respond with the scripture which "tells us" that.

 

[proveallthings]

Sorry, but where did he go then? This makes no sense.

Try 1Peter 3:18-19.

 

[proveallthings]

Way to get to the heart of the issue Webb! I contend that we have no reason to believe his spirit went anywhere. Nowhere are we told about any activity of Jesus during the 3 days of his death. Assuming that his spirit went somewhere, anywhere is pure conjecture and is at best extremely biased and subject to the opinion of the person doing the assuming.
All we are told is that Jesus died and was then raised on the 3rd day. Scripture makes no distinction between the local of his remains.

You are forgetting 1Peter 3:18-19.

 

[FrustratedForumer]

Try 1Peter 3:18-19.

Where is Hell derived from this?

Let's look a little further, and see what it tells us ...
22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;

the idea of Christ visiting Hell is based on a handful of closely related, but notably difficult texts of scripture - literally just these - 1 Peter 3 v 19 and 4 v 6, 2 Peter 2 v 4 - 5, and Jude v 6.

The key text quoted is 1 Peter 3 v 19 but it must be understood in its context, being v18, which refers to the death and resurrection of Christ. Clearly, whatever v19 refers to, it cannot mean Christ going to Hell in between His crucifixion and Resurrection - v18 rules this out. So, what does it mean ? Well, v18 contrasts Christ's earthly life with His new resurrected life, ( just like 1 Corinthians 15 v 45,49 ). It suggests that Christ preached to "the spirits in prison" spiritually (or, if you like, it was the spirit of Christ who preached, rather than Christ.)

And who was it that He preached to ? Some have suggested that the "spirits in prison" are fallen angels. But again, the context of 1 Peter 3 v 20 makes it clear that it was at the time of Noah. The only acceptable understanding is that the Spirit of Christ was at work through Noah, preaching not to fallen angels, but to the disobedient generation among whom Noah lived. And what did Noah preach ? He preached God's righteousness ( 2 Peter 2 v 4 - 5 ) and the need for repentance ( consistent with 2 Peter 3 v 9 as well).

Some people have made much of the fact that Peter says that "He went and preached...etc", but throughout the Old Testament, when the prophets preached, it was said that God was coming and intervening through them, just as with Noah. Also, don't we sometimes say " Do you know, he only went and told so-an-so...." ? This doesn't mean that we emphasise them actually going somewhere. Conclusion

Did Jesus actually descend into Hell following His crucifixion ? No, this idea is built upon a handful of texts which are themselves closely related, and very unclear ones at that. We do well to heed the comment of Martin Luther on 1 Peter 3v19 :

" A wonderful text is this, and a more obscure passage perhaps than any other in the New Testament, so that I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means ".
​

If this was true for the great reformer Luther, then we ought to beware of taking a dogmatic view of it ourselves.

It seems more reasonable to think that this text refers to the fact that the Lord Jesus was appealing to the unbelievers in Noah's day, through Noah's preaching ( as Christ does through all preaching - Romans 10; 2 Corinthians 5), calling them to repentance.

As regards Christ descending into Hell, as per the Apostles Creed, He did not literally descend into the place called Hell. Indeed He could say to the repentant, dying thief "Today, you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23v43)
Did Christ go to Hell after he died on the Cross?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

You are forgetting 1Peter 3:18-19.

Not at all. Here's verse 18:

Why, even the Anointed One died (once and for all time) over sins (someone who is righteous for those who are unrighteous) to lead you to God. And although his flesh was in fact killed, he was brought to life as a spirit; then he preached to the spirits who had been imprisoned

Jesus, according to this passage was brought back to life, THEN he preached to the spirits in prison.

 

[proveallthings]

Where is Hell derived from this?

the idea of Christ visiting Hell is based on a handful of closely related, but notably difficult texts of scripture - literally just these - 1 Peter 3 v 19 and 4 v 6, 2 Peter 2 v 4 - 5, and Jude v 6.

The key text quoted is 1 Peter 3 v 19 but it must be understood in its context, being v18, which refers to the death and resurrection of Christ. Clearly, whatever v19 refers to, it cannot mean Christ going to Hell in between His crucifixion and Resurrection - v18 rules this out. So, what does it mean ? Well, v18 contrasts Christ's earthly life with His new resurrected life, ( just like 1 Corinthians 15 v 45,49 ). It suggests that Christ preached to "the spirits in prison" spiritually (or, if you like, it was the spirit of Christ who preached, rather than Christ.)

And who was it that He preached to ? Some have suggested that the "spirits in prison" are fallen angels. But again, the context of 1 Peter 3 v 20 makes it clear that it was at the time of Noah. The only acceptable understanding is that the Spirit of Christ was at work through Noah, preaching not to fallen angels, but to the disobedient generation among whom Noah lived. And what did Noah preach ? He preached God's righteousness ( 2 Peter 2 v 4 - 5 ) and the need for repentance ( consistent with 2 Peter 3 v 9 as well).

Did Jesus actually descend into Hell following His crucifixion ? No, this idea is built upon a handful of texts which are themselves closely related, and very unclear ones at that.

[/url]

I said nothing about Hell, but you assume Hell, probably because of a faulty understanding of Hell.

It is interesting that when the obvious meaning of certain verses of scripture seem to contradict our current understanding of the gospel, that we call them unclear and obscure. We then try to twist and contort the scripture into something that fits better with our current understanding instead of reexamining our original conception of other scriptures. I guess it is just human nature.

It is very clear from these verses that when Jesus died(his spirit left his body, leaving his body dead), there was a period of time between death and resurrection that Christ as a spirit was active and very much alive. If you read these verses with this understanding it is plain to see that the activity he was involved in was preaching to spirits of those, who had not accepted the fullness of the gospel while in this life. An example of who these people were, is given as those who lived in the days of Noah. Why even consider fallen angels or anything else. It is plainly stated here.

These verses are only unclear to those who do not have a full understanding of life after death and the gospel plan. You admit they are unclear and then prove your lack of understanding by making wild guesses as to what they might mean in order to not contradict your current understanding of the gospel. Other verses that relate to this topic are: 1Peter 4:6 and 1Corinthians 15:29. It's time to reexamine your premises.

 

[Classik]

1 Corinthians 1:17 tells us that Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel."

No need to argue the scripture tells us that it is not required.

your username is even Interesting. The place you quoted will not give complete understanding unless you read the entire chapter.
The people were kind of divided - and Paul was openly rebuking them. See verses 13 & 14.
That verse 17 = verse 13b

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Heres a link about http://www.christianforums.net/f17/spirits-prison-35124/#post525849.

When discussing 1 Peter 3, we must ask what this "prison" was that these spirits were in. In asking this question we see that the Bible does mention a 'prison' of sorts on a few occasions. Let's look at them.

Jude 5-6
Despite the fact that you already know everything, I want to remind you that; although Jehovah saved people out of the land of Egypt, He thereafter destroyed those who didn’t show faith. 6 He also locked up the [heavenly] messengers who didn’t keep the position they had long ago and left the place where they lived. So, He’s now keeping them in perpetual darkness where they await the judgment of the Great Day.

2 Peter 2:4
4 Why, God didn’t spare the messengers who sinned, but threw them into the dark pits of Tartarus, where they are awaiting His justice. 5 And He didn’t spare the first arrangement. Yet, He guarded Noah (who was a preacher of righteousness) along with seven others, when He brought a downpour upon a system of godless people.

These are the Biblical examples we have of God sending angels or spirit beings to prison.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

It is very clear from these verses that when Jesus died(his spirit left his body, leaving his body dead), there was a period of time between death and resurrection that Christ as a spirit was active and very much alive. If you read these verses with this understanding it is plain to see that the activity he was involved in was preaching to spirits of those, who had not accepted the fullness of the gospel while in this life. An example of who these people were, is given as those who lived in the days of Noah. Why even consider fallen angels or anything else. It is plainly stated here.

These verses are only unclear to those who do not have a full understanding of life after death and the gospel plan.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with your assertion that the verses in 1 Peter clearly state that Jesus' soul left his body.

1 Peter 3:18-20 says:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, 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, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Who or what were these 'spirits in prison'? Some have said that they were departed souls but that idea stands opposed to what much of scripture seems to teach about the soul being the whole of man that dies. Others have said that this text is saying that Jesus, after being resurrected and then being gifted with life in the spirit which is the immortality and incorruptability spoken of in 1 Cor 15, went to the rebel spirit beings (angels) who were locked away in Tartarus (Jude 1:7) to proclaim the good news of the kingdom to them letting them know that through his sacrifice they could be reconsiled to the FATHER. The proponents of the 2nd view use texts like Colossians 1:20 to support the claim that Jesus' blood atoned for the sin of man and spirit beings alike.

[God] saw that it was good for him to be complete in everything, and used [Jesus] to bring everything back into a good relationship with Himself, by making peace through his blood [that was shed] on the pole, regardless of whether these things are heavenly or earthly.

------
As for what the scriptures teach about life after death, one will find that the overwhelming majority of what is written indicates that there is NO LIFE after death. Man's hope has always been that of a resurrection as opposed to having their soul released at death.

 

[WIP]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick.

In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation."
I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews.

What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise?

Thanks.

Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

 

[Classik]

He who believes and is baptised...but he who doesn not...

Who is the he? Is 'he' synonymous with 'whoever'? Does it go beyond the people of Christ's time?

 

[WIP]

I've also moved this thread into the A&T forum where differing views may be explored a little more freely.

 

[WIP]

He who believes and is baptised...but he who doesn not...

Who is the he? Is 'he' synonymous with 'whoever'? Does it go beyond the people of Christ's time?

I think this is partly what needs to be discussed. Does it go beyond His time and does it go beyond the descendants of Abraham?

 

[gr8grace]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick.

In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation."
I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews.

What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise?

Thanks.

Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

I have listened to enough of the rancher(Les) to put into context what you have brought up. And I am With Les feldick.

When Les brings up that "He was talking to His disciples." He was referring to the Jews knew what Baptism by water meant. It was a Jew identifying with Something. A Born again Jew would KNOW what Baptism signified. Gentiles wouldn't Know unless they were taught properly.

When Les says," Baptism is not essential to salvation." His context is ALWAYS about,"If one thinks that Baptism saves a person."

"Its a waste of time and water." That is not yikes to me. Les uses this statement when He is around people that believe baptism saves a soul! In that context it is a waste of time and water.

Les is a Great Pastor teacher, He knows the difference of religion and the relationship.

 

[WIP]

The problem is, he didn't make this clear and as a result he was confusing his audience and planting doubt and stumbling blocks. The question that was asked of him was, if I can remember it word for word, "When is it right to baptize?" This is when he responded the way he did and he went on to say it is never right to baptize. I couldn't disagree more that sentiment.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

The speaker's name was Les Feldick

Is that the PBS guy that has that Bible class lecture style show?

The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews.

Did he overlook the book of Acts? Acts 8 where the Samaritans as well as the Ethiopian Eunich had baptism promoted and applied to them.
There's also Acts 10 and the case of Cornelius and his family. What about Lydia in Acts 16:15 and the jailer from Acts 16:30-34 and their families? There is also the case in Acts 19:1-6 where Paul baptised the Ephesians believers (both Jews and Greeks).

There's also the Galatians 3:26-29 texts that lijnks Jews and Gentiles in Christ through baptism.

 

[Classik]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick. In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation." I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews. What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance. I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise? Thanks. Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

I have listened to enough of the rancher(Les) to put into context what you have brought up. And I am With Les feldick. When Les brings up that "He was talking to His disciples." He was referring to the Jews knew what Baptism by water meant. It was a Jew identifying with Something. A Born again Jew would KNOW what Baptism signified. Gentiles wouldn't Know unless they were taught properly. When Les says," Baptism is not essential to salvation." His context is ALWAYS about,"If one thinks that Baptism saves a person." "Its a waste of time and water." That is not yikes to me. Les uses this statement when He is around people that believe baptism saves a soul! In that context it is a waste of time and water. Les is a Great Pastor teacher, He knows the difference of religion and the relationship.

I think I agree with the heighlight if that's what the preacher is trying to emphasise. However I wouldnt use those words

 

[gr8grace]

The problem is, he didn't make this clear and as a result he was confusing his audience and planting doubt and stumbling blocks. The question that was asked of him was, if I can remember it word for word, "When is it right to baptize?" This is when he responded the way he did and he went on to say it is never right to baptize. I couldn't disagree more that sentiment.

From what I have read WIP, I would get with my pastor teacher and ask Him if he would teach his Flock about Water baptism. You seem to have a bunch of believers that can be shaken very easily with Baptism.

Even you said that you haven't made up your mind yet. Your Pastor teacher should have fed his flock this information from the beginning. Then You would not have a bunch of believers shaken so easily with a guest speaker.

Your Quote~~I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

A Pastor teacher should of had this doctrine sealed up with His flock from the Get go.

I have been taught and rightly so, that water baptism has nothing to do with getting saved. One Guest speaker for an hour or so is not going to shake that belief.

 

[gr8grace]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick. In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation." I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews. What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance. I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise? Thanks. Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

I have listened to enough of the rancher(Les) to put into context what you have brought up. And I am With Les feldick. When Les brings up that "He was talking to His disciples." He was referring to the Jews knew what Baptism by water meant. It was a Jew identifying with Something. A Born again Jew would KNOW what Baptism signified. Gentiles wouldn't Know unless they were taught properly. When Les says," Baptism is not essential to salvation." His context is ALWAYS about,"If one thinks that Baptism saves a person." "Its a waste of time and water." That is not yikes to me. Les uses this statement when He is around people that believe baptism saves a soul! In that context it is a waste of time and water. Les is a Great Pastor teacher, He knows the difference of religion and the relationship.

I think I agree with the heighlight if that's what the preacher is trying to emphasise. However I wouldnt use those words

I am Glad that Les used those exact words. If He would acted all "Christiany" and smooth words, WIP probably wouldn't of even brought this up.