I would like to hear what people here think. I definitely say no, and am about to do a debate on it on another website. Let me use a simple syllogism. I of course will be using more proof in the actual debate, but for now I'll just use this. When the debate starts I might post some more arguments here. _______ P.1 Salvation was gained without baptism. Conclusion: Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If I am able to prove premise one, then I prove that baptism is not essential. Defense of first premise: P.1 The thief on the cross, next too Jesus went too heaven the night he died. P.2 The thief could not have been able to have been baptized as he repented on the cross, and died shortly after on the cross. Conclusion: If someone has gone too heaven without being baptized that means baptism is not essential to salvation. The thief went to heaven without being baptized therefore salvation was gained without baptism, and thus baptism is not essential to salvation.
I don't think it can be proven that anyone has been saved without baptism. (Unqualified word).
It may be possible to show that some are saved without
water baptism (eg: Abraham.)
So, I think you might want to clarify your topic more in an actual debate setting.
The idea of baptism is to submerge or plunge under water, but it is also understood to mean to be overwhelmed or overpowered by something.
eg: Matthew 20:23, Luke 12:50 (And note Luke 12:50 represents that the cross itself is a baptism; eg: the theif is baptized with the same baptism as Jesus -- which is the REASON it is salvific; the water is found in the blood being shed, and yes -- it was live and running!.), etc.
Yet, there is a unity in all the baptisms which are salvific Ephesians 4:4-5. So much so, that Chirstians are taught to speak of only "one" baptism, much like we would speak of "one" God ; though there is a plurality of persons, in the latter and a plurality of forms in the former.
'pun not intended...
I'm sorry that I'm not more prepared for the topic, but I'm basically speaking to you before I have had a chance to thoroughly complete my own study of the question. So, I am going to bring up some general points which might at first sight seem weak; for I haven't had a chance to really organize what I've been learning; but they are related at a very deep level which I am just beginning to appreciate myself and which would have been far more apparent to a native speaker of Greek at the time of Christ who could tell when word usage was so out of place/against the norm -- that they wouldn't have inserted it into a lexicon as a definition for 20th century idiots; but would have started looking for the pun meaning of the sentence.
My knee jerk summary of Baptism is that it has the purpose of making us to be like Jesus, so that the Father may see Jesus in us. ("In" could also mean, in union with us). We are baptized into his *DEATH*. ( Romans 6:3-4 ).
Let's do a little historical (and incomplete) rewind, to trace the Jewish idea out just a little:
The Israelites were "baptised into Moses" in the cloud and the sea (Eg: notably WATER); which is curious if understood of getting "wet" for they crossed the sea on "dry land" or "dry shod" ; but that is how scripture speaks about the event seminal to Israel/promised land becoming the prototype of our redemption.
Let's look just a little at the prototype:
Moses specifically named a boy, taken from his father "nun", a new name; The name is Joshua (GK: Iesous) which is *identical* to the name Jesus -- and Moses did this so that Joshua (in lieu of Moses who sinned) would lead the people into the promised land through (ta-da) water.
Every teacher of Israel ( Nicodemous ) OUGHT to have known that, and to have known about the strong driving winds (spirit) causing the water to split, and the release of a bird in sin offering over running water, etc. Many allusions which perhaps escape us today -- but which Jesus points us toward when explaining baptism and saying that it is *NECESSARY* for salvation.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
And:
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and
knowest not these things?
John 3:12 If I have told you
earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Now: compare that with what WIP was questioning -- Mark 16:16
So, I'm' going to assert -- without detailed proof:
Baptism
is necessary for salvation ; the question is why, and is the necessity true in every case -- or in just many peoples cases. (eg: Nicodemus' etc.)
Notably, When Joshua led the people through the Jordan, (the very water and perhaps even the place? John the Baptist baptized) they knew that the water came from a rock near Caserea Phiphi which is cleft open by the river; This miracle crossing is recorded in Joshua 3:13; for there, the miracle of the "sea" is repeated upon their entry. They follow the symbol of baptism in order to enter the promised land. ( 1Corinthians 10:2-4 )
And even the Jews who chose not to take their inheritance in the Land WERE required to cross over for battle in order to have any inheritance at all;
The tie ins between baptism and the spiritual food, spiritual drink, and the Rock, are not coincidences; Paul ties them all together -- and the more I study them, the more I realize they follow a prototype/antitype pattern which is stunningly coherent even in it's ability to explain otherwise patent etymological errors; eg: for one might accuse scripture of confounding the idea of a cleft, crevice, bend/depression in a rock (Kaf, Kefas in Hebrew) with the word for "Rock" itself (Petros) in Greek; an identification made important
while standing at Caseria Philipi (Matthew 16:18, John 1:42 ) the VERY headwaters of the Jordan.
John 1:42 explicitly shows that it's not the word's literal meaning ( Cephas isn't exactly Rock ) which is important, but the interpretive *meaning* of the word (it's CONNOTATION not DENOTATION) to a Jewish mindset desperate for the promised messiah; and this interpretive background naturally goes back to the desert, manna, sea, Jordan, and especially the Spritual rock which the water "flowed from.". etc.
When Jesus asserts that Baptism is necessary, his places it on equal footing (nay, higher footing) than Circumcision (From the time of Moses) as the entry into the covenant.
Baptism replaces Circumcision; and the lack of either one is sufficient to exclude a person from the covenant it belongs to.
I expect to hear some argumentation based on Paul, regarding this point -- and I think if I am to engage in it, I'd prefer to do so in the forum which moderates debate more strictly (Focus on Scripture); There are many points which I need to work through myself, to understand more clearly, and a free for all debate setting will interfere -- although debate itself is a good way to look for errors.
If this interests you enough to hold a longer dialog, consider opening a fresh thread with restricted / more precise topic defined.
Blessings to you.
Your brother in Christ, Jesus; Andrew.
