Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[donadams]

Read it like this

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized,

and

wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

According to those read and write the original languages, this is the correct way to read this verse. "Wash away your sins" is connected to "calling on the name of the Lord.".

If also fits with the rest of scripture

Dave

Except it refers back to ez 36:25-27

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Notice new heart and the spirit are connected to baptism

New heart needs love

Ron 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Thks

 

[Dave...]

If they have not been baptized into Him, (Rom 6:3), they can't believe, in Him.
Their belief is from outside of Him !

The baptism that saves is the result of faith, not the cause. We went over this.

 

[Dave...]

Same as Jn 3:16 but that not a simple act of faith but everything we must believe including baptism

See vs 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Remember context. When did this happen? Before anyone could be baptized with the Holy Spirit. To be one with Jesus before the cross doesn't get you saved. It's impossible. Kept, promises owed, but not saved. OT water baptism is simply publicly identifying with that person and their teachings. We shouldn't ignore the Epistles.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The baptism that saves is the result of faith, not the cause.

I agree.
So, those without faith will not get baptized for their atonement, sanctification, justification; ie. their salvation.

We went over this.

I don't recall that, but maybe so.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You really can't see a difference between "in the name of", and "in" ?

"In John's name" is a possible senario, since Paul addressed a similar situation in the Corinthian church.

Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:12-13)

John's was only unto repentance.
Paul's is in the name of Jesus Christ, and actually into Jesus Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom 6:3-6)
It provides for the rebirth of the repentant. (Rom 6:4)
And the destruction of the old man. (Rom 6:6)

Some people in Samaria were baptized in Jesus's name, but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them.

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. (Acts 8:15-17)

For starters, nobody baptized in John's name.

Why not? As I've pointed out, it was a possible scenario.

That being said, those disciples had never been "immersed" into Christ.
They had ever been "immersed" into His death, burial, or resurrection.
They had never had the old man crucified and been raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.

Therefore water baptism is not sufficient, and not necessary for eternal salvation.

John didn't baptize using his own name.

Then why did they name him?

It wasn't until after Jesus' resurrection that one could be baptized using Jesus' name, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....which is the same as Jesus' name.

Hadn't Jesus was already risen - and about to ascend into heaven when he gave the great commission?

What Jesus commanded the apostles to do was baptize in His name.
The twelve at Ephesus had not done that until Paul met and baptized them.

So? Once again, water baptism is not sufficient, and not necessary for eternal salvation.

Baptism with water in the name of the Lord precedes the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

That doesn't prove it's necessary for salvation. In the CONTEXT of Jn. 3:4-6, "born of water" directly corresponds to "born of the flesh", which is very likely referring to natural birth out of the womb. Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus was referring to water baptism "in the name of the Lord".

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (Jn. 3:5-6)

The Samarians had already been baptized with water, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, by Philip.

So? What makes Peter and John's different from Phillip's? Wasn't Phillip also one of the twelve disciples? Why hadn't those Samarians "immersed" into Christ in their previous baptism - in Jesus's name?

 

[Hopeful 2]

"In John's name" is a possible senario, since Paul addressed a similar situation in the Corinthian church.

The folks at Corinth were not baptized in any name but Jesus'.

Some people in Samaria were baptized in Jesus's name, but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them.

That is right.
Did you have a question about that ?

Why not? As I've pointed out, it was a possible scenario.

You didn't point it out.
You inserted baptism into a different issue.

Therefore water baptism is not sufficient, and not necessary for eternal salvation.

John's baptism unto repentance was insufficient for salvation after Jesus was raised from the dead.
Then, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins took precedence.

Then why did they name him?

The twelve at Ephesus named the guy that baptized them.
John baptized them unto repentance from sin.

Hadn't Jesus was already risen - and about to ascend into heaven when he gave the great commission?

Yes, He had resurrected, and the great commission included baptism in His name.

So? Once again, water baptism is not sufficient, and not necessary for eternal salvation.

John's baptism unto repentance was not sufficient for salvation, after baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins was instituted.

That doesn't prove it's necessary for salvation.

Repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins are necessary for the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost, without which no man can call himself a Christian.

In the CONTEXT of Jn. 3:4-6, "born of water" directly corresponds to "born of the flesh", which is very likely referring to natural birth out of the womb. Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus was referring to water baptism "in the name of the Lord".

I agree.
It was about rebirth.

So? What makes Peter and John's different from Philip's?

Theirs were all the same.
God withheld the gift of the Holy Ghost from the Samarians in order to show that the gift of the Holy Spirit could be given by the laying on of hands.

Wasn't Philip also one of the twelve disciples?

No, Philip was one of the seven set apart to serve, in Acts 6.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But looking at what Happened to Jesus the heavens opened. If im not mistaken He was endowed with power to work the works of the kingdom.

Rather Jesus was demonstrating life under the heavens, the rule of God vs life in the flesh it seemed to be the presence of God was surrounding Him. So it may just be the ultimate baptism is immersed in the presence of God.

Correct me where you think I've strayed.

I agree with your assessment. Jesus was born of the Spirit, but He hadn't received the power of the Spirit until he was baptized by John the Baptist at age 30, that's when His ministry and spiritual life officially started, and also where the gospel of Mark began. I think it is evident that Jn. 3:5 is taking out of context to justify water baptism. As I pointed out in the post above, Nicodemus questioned how can one crawl back into the womb and be born again, Jesus responded, "what's born of the flesh is of the flesh", that's natural birth out of amniotic fluid, i.e. "a water-like substance that surrounds and protects the fetus during pregnancy". Therefore, "born of water and spirit" are referring to natural birth and spiritual birth, water baptism is just a ritual, no infant is automatically saved through infant baptism. The only downside of this, I'm afraid, is that fetuses aborted or miscarried are gone.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The folks at Corinth were not baptized in any name but Jesus'.

You don't know that. Some of them claimed there were under these other church leaders' authority.

That is right.
Did you have a question about that ?

No. Do you?

You didn't point it out.
You inserted baptism into a different issue.

I did point out that "baptized into John's baptism" and "baptized in the name of John" are just semantics with no substantial difference.

John's baptism unto repentance was insufficient for salvation after Jesus was raised from the dead.
Then, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins took precedence.

Then again, why weren't the Samaritans in Acts 8 saved since they were baptized previously in the name of Jesus Christ ?

The twelve at Ephesus named the guy that baptized them.
John baptized them unto repentance from sin.

False assumption. John was in the wilderness, you don't know if John had ever traveled to Ephesus.

Yes, He had resurrected, and the great commission included baptism in His name.

No, he was referring to the receiving of the Holy Spirit through laying of hands. Acts 8 has proven that baptism in His name alone is not sufficient.

John's baptism unto repentance was not sufficient for salvation, after baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins was instituted.

That just proves that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins are necessary for the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost, without which no man can call himself a Christian.

How is water baptism "remission of past sins"? Last time I checked, nothing washes away my sins but the blood of Jesus.

I agree.
It was about rebirth.

And not water baptism.

Theirs were all the same.
God withheld the gift of the Holy Ghost from the Samarians in order to show that the gift of the Holy Spirit could be given by the laying on of hands.

Yes, not by water baptism.

No, Philip was one of the seven set apart to serve, in Acts 6.

Then why did Phillip preach the gospel to them and baptize them, including Simon the sorcorer?

But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:12-13)

 

[Hopeful 2]

You don't know that. Some of them claimed there were under these other church leaders' authority.

If those other leaders were of Christ, they would all have had the same doctrine of baptism.

No. Do you?

No.

I did point out that "baptized into John's baptism" and "baptized in the name of John" are just semantics with no substantial difference.

Those are quite different situations.
Baptism unto repentance-(John's baptism), is a long way from baptism in John's name.

Then again, why weren't the Samaritans in Acts 8 saved since they were baptized previously in the name of Jesus Christ ?

Had any of them died during their wait for Peter and John's laying on of hands, they would have been saved...if their repentance from sin was true.
Did any of them die ?

False assumption. John was in the wilderness, you don't know if John had ever traveled to Ephesus.

Ach... you are right.
I should have said..."The twelve at Ephesus named the baptism of John as that by which they were baptized.

No, he was referring to the receiving of the Holy Spirit through laying of hands. Acts 8 has proven that baptism in His name alone is not sufficient.

You've lost me there...

That just proves that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

No. it doesn't.
How else are we to have our sins remitted ?
How else are we to be inserted into Christ ?
How else are we to be "immersed" into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection ?
How else are we to be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life ?
How else will His atoning, sanctifying, justifying, blood be applied to our bodies ?

How is water baptism "remission of past sins"? Last time I checked, nothing washes away my sins but the blood of Jesus.

The Spirit, water, and the blood, agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

And not water baptism.

Right, but that is a different topic.

Yes, not by water baptism.

Right.
Peter prophesied that repentance from sin, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins would warrant the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
But it turns out that the gift of the Holy Ghost can also be given by others who have the gift already...if the recipient has repented and been baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.

Then why did Philip preach the gospel to them and baptize them, including Simon the sorcorer?

All of us are to be doing the same.
It isn't just the apostles' mission.

But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:12-13)

If that shows us anything, it is that belief/faith alone won't save.
Simon is said to believe, and was baptized; but he didn't repent of sin.
Without repentance from sin, even with baptism using Jesus' name for the remission of past sins, there is no salvation !
Acts 2:38 tells us exactly what is necessary for our start towards salvation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If those other leaders were of Christ, they would all have had the same doctrine of baptism.

But identifying with them is a problem. Paul criticized the Corinthian church that they would've claimed to be baptized in Paul's name if Paul had baptized them,

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. (1 Cor. 1:14-15)

No.

Then why did you ask?

Those are quite different situations.
Baptism unto repentance-(John's baptism), is a long way from baptism in John's name.

Being baptized in the baptizer's name was a real thing in the Corinthian church, and since those men in Ephesus credited John the Baptist, they only knew and experienced John's baptism, how is that situation any different?

Had any of them died during their wait for Peter and John's laying on of hands, they would have been saved...if their repentance from sin was true.
Did any of them die ?

No, and they were not truly saved until Peter and John's laying on of hands.

Ach... you are right.
I should have said..."The twelve at Ephesus named the baptism of John as that by which they were baptized.

Then that was just baptism dating back to the purification ritual in Leviticus. John didn't baptize in anybody's name, right? It's not about salvation. Pharisees came to John the Baptist for baptism, John reproached them.

You've lost me there...

Because you're not following.

No. it doesn't.
How else are we to have our sins remitted ?
How else are we to be inserted into Christ ?
How else are we to be "immersed" into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection ?
How else are we to be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life ?
How else will His atoning, sanctifying, justifying, blood be applied to our bodies ?

With the blood of Christ:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (Jn. 1:29)
These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev. 7:14)

The Spirit, water, and the blood, agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

But they are not interchangeable, water baptism only washes away your dirt.

Right, but that is a different topic.

Why a different topic? Those Samaritans had been baptized - in Jesus's name, Acts 8:12.

Right.
Peter prophesied that repentance from sin, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins would warrant the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
But it turns out that the gift of the Holy Ghost can also be given by others who have the gift already...if the recipient has repented and been baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of sins.

Water baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit don't always happen simultaneously. In some cases such as Acts 2, the Holy Spirit immediately descends upon the individual when they emerges from the water, in others, such as the Samaritans and the Ephesians, they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until an apostle laid hands on them.

All of us are to be doing the same.
It isn't just the apostles' mission.

Why can't Phillip lay hands on those Samaritans? Other disciples had laid hand on him, why didn't he pass it on to the Samaritans?

And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. (Acts 6:5-6)

If that shows us anything, it is that belief/faith alone won't save.

Really? So it's faith plus work or something else now? What about Sola Scriptura?

Simon is said to believe, and was baptized; but he didn't repent of sin.
Without repentance from sin, even with baptism using Jesus' name for the remission of past sins, there is no salvation !
Acts 2:38 tells us exactly what is necessary for our start towards salvation.

That's because water baptism alone is not an immediate remission of past sins, otherwise he wouldn't been saved. In the CONTEXT of Jn. 3:4-6, "born of water" is referring to natural birth, not water baptism. Repentance is required for salvation, water baptism is not.

 

[donadams]

The baptism that saves is the result of faith, not the cause. We went over this.

Faith alone make’s Christ a doctrine alone!

Jn 14:6 the truth is not something but somebody; Jesus Christ

We must be in union with Christ by faith and baptism to be in the new covenant and have communion with God and His saints

 

[Dave...]

Faith alone make’s Christ a doctrine alone!

Jn 14:6 the truth is not something but somebody; Jesus Christ

We must be in union with Christ by faith and baptism to be in the new covenant and have communion with God and His saints

 

[Dave...]

Don,

Grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ. Paul's words, not mine.

Did he mean Grace plus something? Or faith plus something? Or "Jesus Christ" plus somebody? No, that would be adding to the word. 'Alone' is only emphasizing the obvious, because there are some who try to inject water baptism into this, if you can believe that. Even when Paul clearly says, it is not of works.

Grace alone, by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Faith alone does not nullify the rest of scripture, it only verifies it. Thy word is truth. In the beginning was the word, and the word became flesh. All of it.

Picking what you will, and disregarding the rest, is making an idol in your own image. When I confront this idolatry, those same people run to parrot the 'praying to statues' ramblings that they have been taught, thus avoiding the "truth". That's Jesus right?

Faith activates the baptism that saves. The scripture has been very clear on this. The epistles, that were written for the direct purpose to teach us tells us this many times.

Catholicism injects itself into a system of justification that does not exist in scripture. The reason is obvious. The masses who they fool with feel a need to be subservient to the the catholic church to be saved. Devouring little old Italian ladies houses for the Pope. When tradition parts ways with the Truth, Who will you serve?

Dave

 

[Hopeful 2]

But identifying with them is a problem.

The only problem was that they were being divisive based on their contentions.
What those were is not spelled out, with the exception of whom they were "of".

Paul criticized the Corinthian church that they would've claimed to be baptized in Paul's name if Paul had baptized them,

Paul used that as a worst case scenario, in a "church" that was being divisive according to who had taught them the doctrines of Christ.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. (1 Cor. 1:14-15)

Yep, the very worst scenario.
But not one that had actually occurred.
The problem was division.

Being baptized in the baptizer's name was a real thing in the Corinthian church,

That is not stated in 1 Corinthians.
It is only cited as a worst case scenario of what might happen.

and since those men in Ephesus credited John the Baptist, they only knew and experienced John's baptism,

They cited what they experienced.

how is that situation any different?

The 12 at Ephesus answered a question from Paul. (What baptism did you experience ?)
In 1 Cor 1, Paul gave a worst case scenario for division.

No, and they were not truly saved until Peter and John's laying on of hands.

The were not in possession of the gift of the Holy Ghost, until Paul laid hands on them.
Whether or not they were saved would be decided on the day of judgement anyway.

Then that was just baptism dating back to the purification ritual in Leviticus.

I am not sure the Levitical washings involved "immersion".

John didn't baptize in anybody's name, right?

Correct.

It's not about salvation.

John's baptism unto repentance was about salvation, as it is written..."And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins," (Luke 1:76-77)
With..."And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;" (Luke 3:3)
In John's days, salvation was by the remission of sins.
Isn't it still ?

Pharisees came to John the Baptist for baptism, John reproached them.

Agreed, but I don't know why you mentioned it.

With the blood of Christ:

Exactly !
And that blood is applied at out "immersion" into Christ at His death !

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (Jn. 1:29)
These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev. 7:14)

Amen to that !

But they are not interchangeable, water baptism only washes away your dirt.

I disagree.
It is written..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Why a different topic? Those Samaritans had been baptized - in Jesus's name, Acts 8:12.

The Samarians that had their past sins washed away, when Philip baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
On that we agree.
But my comment was about rebirth.

Water baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit don't always happen simultaneously.

Agreed

In some cases such as Acts 2, the Holy Spirit immediately descends upon the individual when they emerges from the water,

Please supply the verse saying that.

in others, such as the Samaritans and the Ephesians, they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until an apostle laid hands on them.

Yep.
The Samarians, (are that also called Samaritans ?), had not all repented of sins first.
The 12 at Ephesus had not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins first.
Both provided God with the opportunity to illustrate that the gift of the Holy Ghost could be passed on by truly repentant men.

Why can't Philip lay hands on those Samaritans? Other disciples had laid hand on him, why didn't he pass it on to the Samaritans?

I don't know.
The Lord must have, via the Holy Spirit, relayed to Peter that it could be done that way for new converts.

Really? So it's faith plus work or something else now? What about Sola Scriptura?

It is faith without the works of the Law, like Paul has been saying over and over again in his epistles.
Define "Sola Scriptura" in the context of obeying the doctrines of Christ for salvation ?

That's because water baptism alone is not an immediate remission of past sins,

It isn't, if one won't quit committing sin.
Repentance from sin comes first.

otherwise he wouldn't been saved.

He wasn't "saved".
He wasn't even converted.

In the CONTEXT of Jn. 3:4-6, "born of water" is referring to natural birth, not water baptism. Repentance is required for salvation, water baptism is not.

John 3:4-6 has nothing to so with water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Except that of baptism being the vehicle to facilitate the rebirth.
Paul writes in Rom 6, that as we are killed and buried with Christ, we are also raised with Him to walk in newness of life.
That is how we are reborn.

 

[JLB]

Read it like this

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized,

and

wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

According to those read and write the original languages, this is the correct way to read this verse. "Wash away your sins" is connected to "calling on the name of the Lord.".

If also fits with the rest of scripture

Dave

Amen.

Calling on the Name of the LORD is how our sins are forgiven because we are obeying the Gospel.

Confessing Jesus as LORD is how we are saved and sanctified by His blood.

For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17

Physical water can not wash away sins.

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

 

[donadams]

Don,

Grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ. Paul's words, not mine.

Did he mean Grace plus something? Or faith plus something? Or "Jesus Christ" plus somebody? No, that would be adding to the word. 'Alone' is only emphasizing the obvious, because there are some who try to inject water baptism into this, if you can believe that. Even when Paul clearly says, it is not of works.

Grace alone, by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Faith alone does not nullify the rest of scripture, it only verifies it. Thy word is truth. In the beginning was the word, and the word became flesh. All of it.

Picking what you will, and disregarding the rest, is making an idol in your own image. When I confront this idolatry, those same people run to parrot the 'praying to statues' ramblings that they have been taught, thus avoiding the "truth". That's Jesus right?

Faith activates the baptism that saves. The scripture has been very clear on this. The epistles, that were written for the direct purpose to teach us tells us this many times.

Catholicism injects itself into a system of justification that does not exist in scripture. The reason is obvious. The masses who they fool with feel a need to be subservient to the the catholic church to be saved. Devouring little old Italian ladies houses for the Pope. When tradition parts ways with the Truth, Who will you serve?

Dave

Faith yes!
Faith alone no!
1 cor 13:2 & 13:12
Phil 1:29

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Who do men say I am, not what do men say about my doctrine!

Jesus Christ is not a doctrine only to be believed!

But also a sacrifice that obtains grace and mercy! Jn 1:16-17 Jn 1:29

And also Jesus Christ (((IS))) our salvation even as and infant! Lk 2:30

We must have union with Christ the only mediator to be in the new covenant and having union with God, eternal life (grace) and be in the communion of saints!

Faith alone won’t do it!

Its a covenant not a Bible study with coffee and doughnuts!

You cannot enter on your own by faith alone! Jn 3:5 but must be born into the new covenant kingdom!

2 pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Baptismal regeneration! Jn 3:22

Thanks


If you accept “faith alone” you reject Jesus Christ and His eternal words!

If you accept “faith alone” you reject scripture the inspired “God breathed” word of God!

If you accept “faith alone” You reject the good news of the gospel!

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…

Jn 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 pet 3:21 …baptism doth also now save us…

 

[donadams]

Can we be glorified without suffering?

Can’t be a Protestant just on the basis of virtue alone!

Thks

 

[donadams]

Christ is not just a doctrine to be believed by faith alone!

He is also a divine person who became man and died for us men and our salvation as a propitiatory sacrifice who’s merits must be applied to our spiritual souls to be cleansed from all sin. (Sacraments of grace)
Also He is the mediator of the covenant requiring union with Him & His grace! (New covenant church)

 

[donadams]

It has been said that Christians are born in the waters of baptism, and are fishes swimming in the waters of baptismal grace!

Not the dry barren wasteland of “faith alone” which Vipers prefer!

If “faith alone” were true Christ would be a doctrine alone, nothing but a doctrine to be believed!

Jesus Christ us our propitiatory sacrifice meriting the atonement, mercy, & grace that are applied to our souls in the administration of the sacraments.

Jesus Christ is Our salvation:

We must have Union with God and His saints in the new covenant by Jesus Christ the mediator, must be in Christ, put on Christ, members of Christ by the grace of faith & baptism.

The sacraments are the fruits of the sacrifice of Christ and produce sanctifying grace!

The Way, The Truth, & The Life! Jn 14:6

Jn 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Grace is the life of God in us.

Brought to life. Eph 2:1 & 2:5

Christ in His person is our salvation! Lk 2:30

Thks

 

[Free]

Faith yes!
Faith alone no!
1 cor 13:2 & 13:12
Phil 1:29

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Who do men say I am, not what do men say about my doctrine!

Jesus Christ is not a doctrine only to be believed!

But also a sacrifice that obtains grace and mercy! Jn 1:16-17 Jn 1:29

And also Jesus Christ (((IS))) our salvation even as and infant! Lk 2:30

We must have union with Christ the only mediator to be in the new covenant and having union with God, eternal life (grace) and be in the communion of saints!

Faith alone won’t do it!

Its a covenant not a Bible study with coffee and doughnuts!

You cannot enter on your own by faith alone! Jn 3:5 but must be born into the new covenant kingdom!

2 pet 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Baptismal regeneration! Jn 3:22

Thanks


If you accept “faith alone” you reject Jesus Christ and His eternal words!

If you accept “faith alone” you reject scripture the inspired “God breathed” word of God!

If you accept “faith alone” You reject the good news of the gospel!

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…

Jn 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 pet 3:21 …baptism doth also now save us…

Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The NT is abundantly clear about that and that is the gospel. There is not a single work we can do to be declared righteous. In fact, adding even one work is a different gospel (Gal 1:6-9).