Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[Dave...]

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. This was fulfilled at Pentecost.

I guess that was my point. The baptism that saves was not available until Pentecost. Being in union with Christ before that, while there still is not an atonement, and still not a sinless life for both sacrifice, and obeying the Law perfectly for believers (the righteousness of God that is imputed to us), and still not a death and resurrection for us to die with and be raised up with Him (born again), would not save anyone until the "promise" was fulfilled.

Union with Jesus Christ, or being "in Him", is what gives us these things that we need to be made right with the Father. This union is the result of the "baptism" by Jesus only, with the Holy Spirit only. This was called the "Promise of the Father" before the cross. This baptism with the Holy Spirit, or "Promise of the Father" Jesus spoke about in John 14:16-18. As you said, fulfilled and began to be given to whom it was promised at Pentecost.

Before the cross, these are OT saints waiting for the fulfillment of this promise. The Holy Spirit, was not the seal of our inheritance in the OT. That's why in the OT the Holy Spirit could come and go in a believer. Many things changed in the relationship between man and the Holy Spirit from OT to NT. Jesus said as much "You cannot bear the now".

Your quoting a lot of scripture after the "Promise" was available, to prove things before it was available, before the cross.

I can't keep up with this thread.

Dave

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

LOL

LOL yourself.

The dictionary's definition of "repent" is "turn from", or, "change".
As men were being told to turn from sin, the repentance was from sin.
If they did not turn from sin, what did they turn from ?
It is written..."For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Cor 7:10)
Looks like repentance, from sin, is necessary for salvation.

What convinces you that they would voluntarily and permenantly turn away from anything through a simple immersion in the water?

In neither is found the doctrine of baptismal regeneration spelled out like it is in Roans 6:4.
John 3:5 is not on the table.

It is on the table in this thread, it's the OP's topic, you're the one who's been sidetracking.

Both are obedience.
It is written..."By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Pro 16:6)

Fear drives you away from the Lord, love draws you closer to him.

Not the works of the Law that Paul wrote against.
As salvation won't be determined until the last day, your point is moot.

Salvation is determined when you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, if you wait for the last day you'd have wasted your talents, and that'd be too late.

Leprosy was not cleansed by bathing.

Then why did God prescribe it for leprosy?

Sins ARE cleansed by baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

No, sins are cleased by the blood of Christ for the remission of sin, Matt. 26:28.

Who cares about that side-track ?

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have whined.

And I have just pointed out that they agree in one !

Doesn't matter when you're actually conflating one with another.

Thanks for pointing out another command from Jesus to baptize, this time, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...which is Jesus !
Why is it that baptism is not necessary for salvation ?

Because it only washes away the dirt, not sin, as exemplified in Acts 8.

You are injecting your feelings onto others.

You're preaching false work-based religion, adding work on top of faith for salvation.

As rebirth wasn't a topic of Paul's interactions with the 12 at Ephesus, or of Peter's interactions at Samaria, any judgements we may have are only conjecture.
Paul describes rebirth clearly, in Rom 6:4..."Raised with Christ to walk in newness of life"

Being born again in Spirit is the same as receiving the Spirit, which occurred in both instances. You're in denial.

It was in some cases.

No, in all cases.

Baptism for the remission of past sins is an entirely different topic than repentance from sin.
Baptism washes away sins.
It only works if the one being baptized has already turned from sin.

The only difference is that "baptism for the remission of past sins" is self-deception. Nothing washes away sins but the blood of Christ, Matt. 26:28.

Agreed.
Jesus' ministry has superceded John's.

And in his ministry, baptism is with the Holy Spirit and fire, Matt. 3:11.

That made no sense.
If they have turned from sin how can they be likened to those who have not turned form sin ?

I don't know, you tell me what's Jesus's point, why he taught this, why his "servants" who were supposed to have turned away from sin would eat and get drunk with unbelievers.

That is a good OT teaching, and meant for OT people.

So the Lord's own words means nothing to you? You get to pick and choose which portion of the bible is applicable to you and which is not?

What sins do babies have ?

Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth, wrath.

I do know that, as the following verse paints the picture..." Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matt 3:12)

No you don't. No one knows the day or the hour.

So print the description you refer to.

Read Acts 9:17-18 yourself.

I agree, as the Spirit of God will not dwell in a polluted temple.

If water can't cleanse leprosy on the outside, how can it cleanse the pollution in the inside?

Agreed, and that was only to show the Jews that God had also accepted Gentile believers.

That debunked the false doctrine of baptismal salvation.

Water baptism "shows" nothing.
Baptism using water, in the name of Jesus Christ, remits past sin. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

Only the blood washes away sin, Matt. 26:28, Jn. 1:29, Rev. 7:14, and nowhere in the bible says it's automatically applied in water baptism.

Yep, and within moments Peter was baptizing them.

Nonetheless they were already saved before baptism.

From what is written, I have to agree with you.

Then sins are not remitted through baptism.

Had they actually repented of sin, John's baptism would have remitted their past sins.
It is written...

1. Mark 1:4
   John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
2. Luke 3:3
   And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

But they hadn't, water baptism was merely a ritual, if not a public stunt.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It is an invalid practice.

But isn't baptism for the remission of sins, according to you? How is it invalid?

Nobody in the NT baptized a baby for the remission of sins they didn't commit.

Sin is not crime, felony or misdemeanor, it's in human nature.

Verses, please.
I already supplied Rom 6:3 to show that one is baptized into Christ.

And I already supplied Acts 2:41, read carefully and see who exactly got baptized.

The gift of the holy Ghost is given IF a man turns from sin and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

No, it's given when the gospel is received and hands are laid, Acts 8:14-17, 10:44-46,

For your sake, I will print it again... Acts 2:38 is...."Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Steps 1, 2, and 3.

For your sake, your misinterpretation is debunked in Acts 8:14-17, water baptism even in Jesus's name does NOT immediately lead to spiritual rebirth in that case, it's not like an assemly line.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

The gift of tongues is one indictor.
A life without sin is the other,

I'm asking about what are the fruits worthy of repentance, since at least we can agree that repentance is required. "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance." (Matt. 3:8)

Scripture, please.

Jn. 3:16.

You did notice that they had been baptized... right ?

No, they received the gospel before baptism, the whole sermon preached by Peter.

The Holy Spirit will not dwell in a polluted temple.
If the eunuch's repentance from sin was real, he would have received the gift o the Holy Ghost...seeing as his "temple" had been washed clean at his baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of past sins.

The eunuch believed Jesus Christ as the Son of God with all his heart, therefore he was saved, according to Jn. 3:16.

Belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
Belief in that, won't save a man or a devil.
The actions of the man, after believing that, is what will save him.

That's work-based false religion.

It is not a false doctrine, and still, it is only a portion of the events a new convert will experience on the way to his eventual salvation.

Yes, converts get baptized, not baptism for conversion. Salvation is not hinged upon baptism.

The only time that occurred was at the home of Cornelius.
The Jews had to be really stunned in order to manifest that God had accepted the Gentiles too.
So God gave them the gift of tongues to show they had been given the Holy Ghost,
Thanks be to God !

To Paul as well, he received the Holy Spirit and regained his sight FIRST.

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord [d]Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9:17)

I have faith in the Lord's ways.
You are welcome to have the same faith, or you can keep arguing against the ways of the Lord.

You're the one who keeps arguing by preaching false doctrines.

Do your 'credible' theologians still commit sin ?

As much as you do.

Everything is debatable.

There're different kinds of gifts, the gift of tongue is not for everyone, 1 Cor. 12:4-11.

Yes I have: thanks for asking.

Don't be so smug, this may apply to you.

In neither of those is anyone baptized into John.

Yet John's baptism was the only form of baptism before Jesus, it was all they knew.

 

[Free]

I guess that was my point. The baptism that saves was not available until Pentecost.

What baptism saves?

Being in union with Christ before that, while there still is not an atonement, and still not a sinless life for both sacrifice, and obeying the Law perfectly for believers (the righteousness of God that is imputed to us), and still not a death and resurrection for us to die with and be raised up with Him (born again), would not save anyone until the "promise" was fulfilled.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is necessary for salvation? If so, can you provide Scripture to support that?

Union with Jesus Christ, or being "in Him", is what gives us these things that we need to be made right with the Father. This union is the result of the "baptism" by Jesus only, with the Holy Spirit only. This was called the "Promise of the Father" before the cross. This baptism with the Holy Spirit, or "Promise of the Father" Jesus spoke about in John 14:16-18. As you said, fulfilled and began to be given to whom it was promised at Pentecost.

Where is that given in Scripture? What makes us right with God is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (ESV)

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)

The Holy Spirit is given to convict us of sin, to guide us into truth, to empower us to walk in holiness, and "as a guarantee." The Holy Spirit doesn't save a person, he is given to a person who is saved.

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

2Co 1:22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. (ESV)

Before the cross, these are OT saints waiting for the fulfillment of this promise. The Holy Spirit, was not the seal of our inheritance in the OT. That's why in the OT the Holy Spirit could come and go in a believer. Many things changed in the relationship between man and the Holy Spirit from OT to NT. Jesus said as much "You cannot bear the now".

The OT saints were waiting for the coming of the Messiah and his kingdom, and the crushing of Israel's enemies, not the Holy Spirit being given.

Your quoting a lot of scripture after the "Promise" was available, to prove things before it was available, before the cross.

I don't understand what your point is here.

I can't keep up with this thread.

It can be difficult when they move fast.

 

[Hopeful 2]

LOL yourself.
What convinces you that they would voluntarily and permenantly turn away from anything through a simple immersion in the water?

You are still confusing repentance from sin with baptism for the remission of sins.

It is on the table in this thread, it's the OP's topic, you're the one who's been sidetracking.

Then the OP started with a strawman argument.

Fear drives you away from the Lord, love draws you closer to him

I will agree with the Proverb.

Salvation is determined when you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, if you wait for the last day you'd have wasted your talents, and that'd be too late.

I will not usurp the Lord's judgement with a claim of something still being determined.

Then why did God prescribe it for leprosy?

He didn't.

No, sins are cleased by the blood of Christ for the remission of sin, Matt. 26:28.

I agree, and that blood is supplied at the waters of baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
I hope you are not saying that Jesus has to bleed every time a man comes to Him for the remission of his past sins.

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have whined.

It's water under the bridge now.

Doesn't matter when you're actually conflating one with another.

Show me the blood you were washed with.
And I'll show you the water I was washed with.

Because it only washes away the dirt, not sin, as exemplified in Acts 8.

I believe Peter's words in Acts 2:38.
And Ananias' words in Acts 22:16.

You're preaching false work-based religion, adding work on top of faith for salvation.

You are preaching a faith only religion without the manifesting of any faith.

Being born again in Spirit is the same as receiving the Spirit, which occurred in both instances. You're in denial.

Any time lag between the two events is too small to mention.

No, in all cases.

Our opinions differ.

The only difference is that "baptism for the remission of past sins" is self-deception. Nothing washes away sins but the blood of Christ, Matt. 26:28.

Then Peter was either deceived or just lying in Acts 2:38.
I don't believe he was either.

And in his ministry, baptism is with the Holy Spirit and fire, Matt. 3:11.

John 4:1 disagrees with you..."When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,"

I don't know, you tell me what's Jesus's point, why he taught this,

In the OT, it was still a works based salvation, with levels of punishment.
That is no longer the case in the NT.

why his "servants" who were supposed to have turned away from sin would eat and get drunk with unbelievers.

Those servants were not Christians.

So the Lord's own words means nothing to you?

They mean plenty to me.

You get to pick and choose which portion of the bible is applicable to you and which is not?

Of course !
Are you still preaching circumcision and dietary rules ?
I'm not.

Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth, wrath.

You really are going to blame a baby for sinning ?
We are truly from different positions

No you don't. No one knows the day or the hour.

You can deny the meaning of scripture all you want, but that does not change its meaning.

Read Acts 9:17-18 yourself.

I did.
Paul got his vision back.
Anything else is inference.

If water can't cleanse leprosy on the outside, how can it cleanse the pollution in the inside?

It can because it is the blood of Christ and not merely water when done in Jesus' name for the remission of sins..

That debunked the false doctrine of baptismal salvation.

If it had, why did Peter than ask ..."Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:47-48)

Only the blood washes away sin, Matt. 26:28, Jn. 1:29, Rev. 7:14, and nowhere in the bible says it's automatically applied in water baptism.

Too bad you were not there to set Peter straight.

Nonetheless they were already saved before baptism.

If you consider reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost as the sign that one is "saved" then, to you, your POV is correct.
I know they all still had to endure faithfully until the end to be saved.

Then sins are not remitted through baptism.

I am going to believe Jesus, Peter, Ananias, and Paul, before I slide into your POV.

But they hadn't, water baptism was merely a ritual, if not a public stunt.

They hadn't repented of sin ?
What do you base that idea on ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Immersion in water is an ordinance of God. The Pharisees refused to be immersed in water and are said to have rejected the will of God against themselves for not doing it.
Jesus was also immersed in water to fulfill all righteousness.

Baptism is not as simple as a dunk in the water by its literal definition. If it's necessary for salvation, then that would open a whole can of worms -

First of all, must the participant be voluntary? Which means, an informed decision with consent? If I'm just following other people who get baptized, or I'm told to get baptized, is my baptism valid? Do I get saved?

Then in what manner should the baptism be performed? Must I be fully immersed into the water? If yes, how deep and for how long I'm expected to hold my breath? If no, as I just have water poured over me or sprinkled, is that valid?

And the qualification of the baptist - who is qualified to baptize? I know you'd quote 1 Tim. 3, but those are the qualifications for overseers, and those qualifications are mostly virtues, whereas in Acts effective baptism associated with the receiving of the Holy Spirit were all performed by apostles, which are believed to be different from overseers. So what are the qualifications of an apostle? There's a modern day apostolic movement, with many self-branded apostles, is any of them qualified?

Now suppose overseers are also qualified to baptize, then how can you know whether an overseer meets all of those qualifications in 1 Tim. 3? Some arrogant members on this forum take the "husband of one wife" and "govern his children" clauses literally, that means pastors who're single either by choice or circumstance, divorced, widowed, infertile, having adopted children not of their own, having only one child - instead of "childREN" are all unqualified, not only unqualified to baptize, but unqualified to be an overseer, they're all frauds, even if they've devoted their whole life to God, according to their literal interpretation. Oh, and all women are excluded. Is that what you believe? And if 1 Tim. 3 is not the golden standard regarding the qualification of the baptist, then what is? Board certification? State registration? Bible school diplomacy?

You may ask, why does any of these nitty gritties matter? Well, if water baptism is really necessary for salvation, then it absolutely matters to God, and God goes down to every little details, see all those intricate design of his tabernacle and the instructions of offerings in the Torah. You want it work, you must do it in God's way. God didn't accept Cain's offering because it was subpar, Cain didn't do it properly. But unfortunately, none of these technical details is clearly described in the bible, it's all up to tradition, so what is the proper way?

Before you dive in to this rabbit hole, you should realize that if you've taken the presupposition of baptismal salvation, you've put an artificial barrier between man and God, because this "proper way" is subject to human manipulation. Baptism is for those who are ALREADY saved, not the other way around, it's a sacred ritual that symbolizes, declares and celebrates one's spiritual rebirth. If you're not born again already, then there'd be nothing to symbolize, declare and celebrate, this order cannot be distorted.

To think that Jesus was saying someone had to be born of the water of a womb sounds ridiculous to me. As if there are some who are not born of the water of a womb.

Wasn't Nicodemus talking about born of the water of a womb? Jesus was responding to that remark, "born of water" is the same as "born of flesh". The only thing ridiculous is taking the phrase "born of water" out of context.

 

[Hopeful 2]

But isn't baptism for the remission of sins, according to you? How is it invalid?

Babies have no sin to be washed away.

Sin is not crime, felony or misdemeanor, it's in human nature.

LOL...now you are a philosopher too ?
Theft is a sin.
So is murder.

And I already supplied Acts 2:41, read carefully and see who exactly got baptized.

3000 folks got baptized.

No, it's given when the gospel is received and hands are laid, Acts 8:14-17, 10:44-46,

Our opinions differ.
Who laid hands on the eunuch ?
Who laid hands on Cornelius ?

For your sake, your misinterpretation is debunked in Acts 8:14-17, water baptism even in Jesus's name does NOT immediately lead to spiritual rebirth in that case, it's not like an assemly line.

It won't lead to Spiritual rebirth if the repentance from sin was false.
Otherwise it will.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Thank God !
God showed that through the laying on of hands of faithful men, the gift of the Holy Ghost could be passed along.
That did not stop God from continuing to give the same gift the original way.
Nobody laid hands on me when I received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I'm asking about what are the fruits worthy of repentance, since at least we can agree that repentance is required. "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance." (Matt. 3:8)

The gift of tongues is one indictor.
A life without sin is the other.

No, they received the gospel before baptism, the whole sermon preached by Peter.

You went off course again.

The eunuch believed Jesus Christ as the Son of God with all his heart, therefore he was saved, according to Jn. 3:16.

Those who believe, turn from sin and get baptized to wash away their past sins.
Unbelievers will not turn from sin and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.

That's work-based false religion.

Fine by me, as long as it isn't the "works of the Law" for salvation that Paul preached against.

Yes, converts get baptized, not baptism for conversion.

I agree.

Salvation is not hinged upon baptism.

We disagree.
Nobody who loves God or His Son wants their old sins to remain on their souls.

To Paul as well, he received the Holy Spirit and regained his sight FIRST.

It is written that he received his sight.
His reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost is not written of.

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord [d]Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9:17)

See ?

You're the one who keeps arguing by preaching false doctrines.

I preach what Jesus, Peter, and Paul commanded.

As much as you do.

My "turn from" sin was real, so they must be non-sinners.

There're different kinds of gifts, the gift of tongue is not for everyone, 1 Cor. 12:4-11.

I disagree.

Don't be so smug, this may apply to you.

Are you admitting that your fight against baptism in the name of Jesus Christ's for the remission of past sins is darkness ?

Yet John's baptism was the only form of baptism before Jesus, it was all they knew.

Agreed, but they were not baptized into John like we can be baptized into Christ. (Rom 6:3)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are still confusing repentance from sin with baptism for the remission of sins.

No I'm not. You repeatedly evoke the confusing phrase, "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," even though repentance must come first, and only the blood remits sin.

Then the OP started with a strawman argument.

No, the OP proposed a valid argument against a mininterpretation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5. You never addressed these verses, you keep sidetracking with those other verses.

I will agree with the Proverb.

And I will agree with the Shema - love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, Deut. 6:4.

I will not usurp the Lord's judgement with a claim of something still being determined.

You're the usurper who contradicts his words.

He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Eph. 1:4-5)

He didn't.

Yes he did, Lev. 15:13.

I agree, and that blood is supplied at the waters of baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

In neither is blood mentioned.

I hope you are not saying that Jesus has to bleed every time a man comes to Him for the remission of his past sins.

When Jesus declared, "it is finished," it was finished, He only bled for that one time. What's not finished is for each individual to believe Jesus as the Son of God and accept him as their Lord and Savior, then the blood - already shed - is applied. Then they present themselves as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2), not Lord Jesus.

It's water under the bridge now.

Good, bygones be bygones.

Show me the blood you were washed with.
And I'll show you the water I was washed with.

You show me where in either Acts 2:38 or 22:16 is blood applied first.

I believe Peter's words in Acts 2:38.
And Ananias' words in Acts 22:16.

Then why don't you believe Ananias' words in Acts 9:17, that Paul was to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Or Peter's words in 8:22-23? Simon was most definitely baptized in 8:13, according to you his sins were supposed to have been washed away, where do these wicknessed, bitterness and inquity come from?

You are preaching a faith only religion without the manifesting of any faith.

I'm not preaching anything, I'm only corroborating the OP, echoing his polemics against the false doctrine of "baptimal salvation".

Any time lag between the two events is too small to mention.

But the order is clear, which is sufficient to debunk the false doctrine of "baptimal salvation".

Our opinions differ.

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Then Peter was either deceived or just lying in Acts 2:38.
I don't believe he was either.

Peter was fulfilling the Great Commission. You don't understand.

John 4:1 disagrees with you..."When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,"

So convenient and conniving of you to left out the next line in the same sentence:

Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.

In the OT, it was still a works based salvation, with levels of punishment.
That is no longer the case in the NT.

But that's in the NT, not the OT. And if OT is no longer the case, why are you quoting Proverbs?

Those servants were not Christians.

Unbelievers are non-Christians, those servants are Christians.

They mean plenty to me.

Then why do you disregard them as only applicable to "OT people"? Who are you to decide who's "OT people" and who's "NT people"? God is not a respecter of person.

Of course !
Are you still preaching circumcision and dietary rules ?
I'm not.

No you don't, you're consistently contradicting God's words.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

You really are going to blame a baby for sinning ?
We are truly from different positions

You're in the position of contradicting God's words.

You can deny the meaning of scripture all you want, but that does not change its meaning.

You're the one in denial with one heresy after another.

I did.
Paul got his vision back.
Anything else is inference.

No you didn't. By denying his salvific status, you're discrediting Paul, meanwhile you're still hypocritically quoting from his letters.

It can because it is the blood of Christ and not merely water when done in Jesus' name for the remission of sins..

No it can't. Water is just water, not blood, as much as communal wine is just wine, not blood. This is more laughable than the hocus pocus of presenting wine as the blood of Jesus.

If it had, why did Peter than ask ..."Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:47-48)

Because that's a public ceremony in declaration of their new life in Christ.

Too bad you were not there to set Peter straight.

The only thing straight is the path John the baptist set for Jesus to come, Matt. 3:1-2

If you consider reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost as the sign that one is "saved" then, to you, your POV is correct.
I know they all still had to endure faithfully until the end to be saved.

You are conflating justification with sanctification.

I am going to believe Jesus, Peter, Ananias, and Paul, before I slide into your POV.

If you do believe them, you wouldn't have contradicted their words with your own baseless opinions and perfidious work-based religion.

They hadn't repented of sin ?
What do you base that idea on ?

On John the Baptist calling them a brood of vipers and telling them to "bear fruits worthy of repentance".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Babies have no sin to be washed away.

Or baptism is only for repentant sinners whose sins are justified, such as the tax collector, Lk. 18:13-14, not babies.

the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

LOL...now you are a philosopher too ?
Theft is a sin.
So is murder.

Murder is a crime, murderous thought is a sin, you don't know the difference.

3000 folks got baptized.

3000 who were ALREADY saved upon hearing and believing Peter's sermon:

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:40)

Our opinions differ.
Who laid hands on the eunuch ?
Who laid hands on Cornelius ?

Same disciples who baptized them afterwards.

It won't lead to Spiritual rebirth if the repentance from sin was false.
Otherwise it will.

True repentance is proven by the fruits worthy of repentance, not baptism.

Thank God !
God showed that through the laying on of hands of faithful men, the gift of the Holy Ghost could be passed along.
That did not stop God from continuing to give the same gift the original way.
Nobody laid hands on me when I received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Enjoy your unverifiable anecdotal boasting with no validity and no power for rebuttal. I cling to the word of God.

The gift of tongues is one indictor.
A life without sin is the other.

That's unreliable, since gifts differ.

You went off course again.

No I didn't, I'm stating the correct sequence of events.

Those who believe, turn from sin and get baptized to wash away their past sins.
Unbelievers will not turn from sin and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.

Good, belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation, not water baptism.

Fine by me, as long as it isn't the "works of the Law" for salvation that Paul preached against.

Works of the tradition is worse than works of the law.

I agree.

Then why are you still defending the false doctrine of baptismal salvation?

We disagree.
Nobody who loves God or His Son wants their old sins to remain on their souls.

Those who're born again are empowered with the Holy Spirit to overcome their sins.

It is written that he received his sight.
His reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost is not written of.

You're accusing Ananias of being a liar.

See ?

I see, you don't.

I preach what Jesus, Peter, and Paul commanded.

Oh really? Isn't what Jesus commanded only for "OT people" who are beneath you?

My "turn from" sin was real, so they must be non-sinners.

That's between you and God, I don't know what fruit of rentance you've borne, whether you have had any penance or remorse, and I'm not in any position to judge.

I disagree.

No surprise for you who picks and chooses your own scripture.

Are you admitting that your fight against baptism in the name of Jesus Christ's for the remission of past sins is darkness ?

No, I'm telling you, you may be those who don't know good from evil, which Isaiah warned about.

Agreed, but they were not baptized into John like we can be baptized into Christ. (Rom 6:3)

They were baptized into John's baptism, nonetheless.

 

[D-D-W]

The point of the thread is what is required for salvation.
So do you, or do you not believe that Zacheus was saved when Jesus responded immediately to his testimony by proclaiming:

And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house ?

Double meaning. Salvation ( aka Jesus) came to his house. Whether that means Zack was saved or not is another issue; and again, this was under the Mosaic covenant which did not have a requirement of baptism.

 

[D-D-W]

What baptism saves?

Indeed. I have found 7 listed in the NT scriptures.

1 - John's baptism (in water, no longer effective) Matt 3, Acts 19
2 - regular Christian baptism (in water) Matt 28, Mk 16
3 - Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit (no water) Acts 2
4 - baptism of suffering (no water) Mk 10
5 - baptism in fire (no water) Matt 3, Lk 3
6 - baptism into the body of believers (no water) 1 Cor 12
7 - baptism for the dead (we really have no idea what this one entailed) 1 Cor 15

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Indeed. I have found 7 listed in the NT scriptures.

1 - John's baptism (in water, no longer effective) Matt 3, Acts 19
2 - regular Christian baptism (in water) Matt 28, Mk 16
3 - Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit (no water) Acts 2
4 - baptism of suffering (no water) Mk 10
5 - baptism in fire (no water) Matt 3, Lk 3
6 - baptism into the body of believers (no water) 1 Cor 12
7 - baptism for the dead (we really have no idea what this one entailed) 1 Cor 15

I think there're only three - baptism with water, spirit and fire. The common baptism usually performed by a pastor is the water baptism, which is continuation and replication of John the Baptist's work; baptisms with the Holy Spirit and fire are metaphors, baptism with the Holy Spirit is spiritual birth, aka born again; baptism with fire, for believers is the judgement of their work, for unbelievers is divine retribution.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matt. 3:11)

If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:14-15)

Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory. (Rev. 16:8-9)

 

[donadams]

It is an issue, for those who aren't already saved. Look at what Jesus said earlier:

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (ESV)

This shows that even if a person does many righteous works, it doesn't mean there is a relationship with Christ. The relationship comes first--justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone--and the good works are then evidence of a saving faith. Believers stand before the judgement seat of Christ to determine the level of reward, not to determine their final destination.

Works don't save anyone; faith in Christ does.

True must have union with Christ in grace to be fruitful
Jn 15:4-6
Thks

 

[donadams]

Understanding of mk 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

He who believes Christ and His doctrine of (((faith & baptism))) shall be saved! He who not believe Christ and His doctrine of ((( faith & baptism)) shall be damned!

Amen!

 

[JLB]

Okay, but what does that have to do with anything? How does that address what Jesus already stated in Matthew 7? I'm not sure what your point is.

Matthew 7 has nothing to do with Matthew 25.

If someone Never knew the Lord then obviously they were never His people, never saved; never born again, never joined to Christ, never one with Christ.


Matthew 25 is describing His people that He gave a measure of His life to in order to reproduce it in others.


“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them.
Matthew 25:14

 

[Free]

Indeed. I have found 7 listed in the NT scriptures.

1 - John's baptism (in water, no longer effective) Matt 3, Acts 19

Where is it stated that John's baptism saved?

2 - regular Christian baptism (in water) Matt 28, Mk 16

Where does Matt 28 say that water baptism saves? Be careful with Mark 16 as Jesus does not say that "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned." That he leaves it out for those who don't believe suggests that it isn't baptism that saves those who do believe. Salvation rests on belief in Christ and his work, as the rest of the NT states.

3 - Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit (no water) Acts 2

Where is it stated that such a baptism saves?

4 - baptism of suffering (no water) Mk 10

Where is it stated that such a baptism saves?

5 - baptism in fire (no water) Matt 3, Lk 3

Where is it stated that such a baptism saves?

6 - baptism into the body of believers (no water) 1 Cor 12

Where is it stated that such a baptism saves?

7 - baptism for the dead (we really have no idea what this one entailed) 1 Cor 15

Right, so we cannot say that it saves.

 

[Free]

Matthew 7 has nothing to do with Matthew 25.

If someone Never knew the Lord then obviously they were never His people, never saved; never born again, never joined to Christ, never one with Christ.


Matthew 25 is describing His people that He gave a measure of His life to in order to reproduce it in others.


“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them.
Matthew 25:14

Matt 7 is describing the very same as Matt 25--the final judgement at the end of the age--so they have everything to do with each other. Those who knew Christ and whom he knew, as evidenced by their obedient, righteous works, have eternal life. And those who didn't know Christ and whom he didn't know, as evidenced by their lack of righteous works, will receive eternal punishment.

The point is, Jesus first makes it clear that it isn't works that save, but knowing him and putting one's faith in him that saves. Then, his point in Matt 25 is that the works that one performs is evidence of one having put his or her faith in him.

 

[Dave...]

What baptism saves?


Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is necessary for salvation? If so, can you provide Scripture to support that?

All of these verses are speaking of the same thing. You'll see the overlapping. They each further define each other. These passages are all after the cross, the transition, and is what believers even today experience. Everywhere you see "raised up with Him" in the NT, it's the result of this...

1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Galatians 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:10-14 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 6: 3-10 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

OT saints had to wait till all the conditions were met. Old testament saints, who had heard and trusted the Gospel, and still living after the cross, were due the Promise. That's what happened at Pentecost. Every believer since that transition receive the Promise, the Baptism with the Holy Spirit the moment they first believe. Jesus is the baptizer. The Holy Spirit is the agent of that baptism. This makes us "in Him".

Today we receive atonement for our sin, and the righteousness of God is imputed to us, and we are born again, all as a direct result of the being "in Him". Which is a direct result of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit (by Jesus). Which is a result of our genuine faith in Him.

I talked about some of this in earlier posts. I can get into more detail. Clearly, and I hope it's obvious, that I'm not advocating water baptism for salvation. That's simply not taught in scripture, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics people us distorting scripture, it's just not in there. "O foolish Galatians!"

I don't have time to answer the rest of your post. Maybe tomorrow.

Dave

 

[JLB]

Galatians 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

This verse is about salvation through faith and being baptized into Christ, not water baptism.

The scriptures may use similar language for two different subjects being addressed so we must see what the context refers to in order to understand the subject matter the writer (in this case Paul) has in mind.

It’s important to understand that Paul taught about three different baptisms with three different baptizers.

Paul teaches here using shadows and types from the Old Testament.

Are you familiar with this?

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

• all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

1. Baptized into Moses correlates to being baptized into Christ.

Moses was a type of Christ being a prophet.

Remember it was by sacrificing the Passover Lamb that the children of Israel we “saved” from death (Death angel) and then would “follow” Moses of of Egypt as we follow Christ when we are set free from the world. (Egypt is a type of the world; bondage)

This is the scripture that shows us being baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit being the Baptizer.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13

The Holy Spirit is the Baptizer is this baptism. It is the Holy Spirit that gives the new birth by which we are born again; thus saved.

2. Being baptized in the cloud refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.​

In this baptism, Jesus is the Baptizer.

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:4

3. Being baptized in the sea correlates to water baptism.​

​

In this baptism, man is the baptizer. Starting with John then the apostles and today maybe your Pastor or an Evangelist.​

​

​

​

​

JLB​

 

[Hopeful 2]

No I'm not. You repeatedly evoke the confusing phrase, "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," even though repentance must come first, and only the blood remits sin.

You do realize, I hope, that the 'baptism of repentance for the remission of sins' was John the baptist's ministry...right ?
Not the NT baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins...right ?
In either case, the turn from sin does come first.

No, the OP proposed a valid argument against a mininterpretation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5. You never addressed these verses, you keep sidetracking with those other verses.

As the misinterpretation of those verse was not valid, it was a strawman argument.
I am answering some following posts, not the OP.

And I will agree with the Shema - love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, Deut. 6:4.

I am glad of that, and the ability rebirth has given us to accomplish God's will.

You're the usurper who contradicts his words.
He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Eph. 1:4-5)

Hardly.
Will I still be holy and without blame on the last day ?
I don't know: so claiming salvation now, is only a hopeful guess.

Yes he did, Lev. 15:13.

You must mean some other verse, as that one is not about leprosy.

In neither is blood mentioned.

It doesn't need to be, as the faithful know that water, in the name of Jesus Christ, is the blood of cleansing from past sins.
Do you expect Jesus to shed blood every time someone comes to Him with sorrow for wasting their life on sin ?

When Jesus declared, "it is finished," it was finished, He only bled for that one time. What's not finished is for each individual to believe Jesus as the Son of God and accept him as their Lord and Savior, then the blood - already shed - is applied. Then they present themselves as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2), not Lord Jesus.

How is it applied ?

You show me where in either Acts 2:38 or 22:16 is blood applied first.

The Savior's blood is the water with which we are baptized in His name.
Men are washed of past sins by the blood of Christ. (1 John 1:7)
Men are washed of past sins by the waters of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38)
Spirit, water, and blood, agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

Then why don't you believe Ananias' words in Acts 9:17, that Paul was to be filled with the Holy Spirit?

I do believe it, but there is no record of it happening.
Did he get the gift of tongues immediately ?
Or later ?

Or Peter's words in 8:22-23? Simon was most definitely baptized in 8:13, according to you his sins were supposed to have been washed away, where do these wicknessed, bitterness and inquity come from?

I do believe Peter's (Luke's) words.
Without a true repentance from sin, baptism is a waste of time

I'm not preaching anything, I'm only corroborating the OP, echoing his polemics against the false doctrine of "baptimal salvation".

Is that a second parcel of the OP ?
You mentioned something earlier about baby baptism being the OP's point.

But the order is clear, which is sufficient to debunk the false doctrine of "baptimal salvation".

The order is quit clear, under normal circumstances established on the day of Pentecost by Peter.
Repentance from sin.
Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Then, enduring faithfully until the end is still required for salvation.

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I thank God for providing the facts, in the NT writings.
I thank God for allowing us in the NT, to see the patterns set in the OT, and fulfilled in the NT.

Peter was fulfilling the Great Commission. You don't understand.

Yes, he was; and that commission included repentance from sin, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, and rebirth.
Do you see some other commission ?

So convenient and conniving of you to left out the next line in the same sentence:
Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.

Were not His disciples doing His ministry ?
Or had they gone rogue ?

But that's in the NT, not the OT. And if OT is no longer the case, why are you quoting Proverbs?

If you want to pursue that point, start another thread.

Unbelievers are non-Christians, those servants are Christians.

Christians don't get drunk.
Drunks are not servants of the Lord.

Then why do you disregard them as only applicable to "OT people"? Who are you to decide who's "OT people" and who's "NT people"? God is not a respecter of person.

Are you really going to deny there is a New Covenant and New Testament ?

No you don't, you're consistently contradicting God's words.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

I take it then, that you are still preaching circumcision and dietary rules.

You're in the position of contradicting God's words.

You really are going to blame a baby for sinning ?

You're the one in denial with one heresy after another.

You really are going to blame a baby for sinning ?

No you didn't. By denying his salvific status, you're discrediting Paul, meanwhile you're still hypocritically quoting from his letters.

The day of judgement has NOT happened yet.
His salvation will be determined by God on that day.

No it can't. Water is just water, not blood, as much as communal wine is just wine, not blood. This is more laughable than the hocus pocus of presenting wine as the blood of Jesus.

No sense dealing with that side-track.

Because that's a public ceremony in declaration of their new life in Christ.

Prove that from scripture.

The only thing straight is the path John the baptist set for Jesus to come, Matt. 3:1-2

OK, you seem to believe that Peter was a heretic.
I must disagree.

You are conflating justification with sanctification.

Both are accomplished by the application of the Lord's blood.
What's to conflate ?

If you do believe them, you wouldn't have contradicted their words with your own baseless opinions and perfidious work-based religion.

Pick out one thing that I wrote that is contradicted by scripture.

On John the Baptist calling them a brood of vipers and telling them to "bear fruits worthy of repentance".

Looks like that had not yet repented/turned from sin.