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)