Is Baptism essential for salvation

[Darron Steele]

FundamentalOnly: you did not offer anything new that has not been addressed on this thread -- except your extract from Romans 6:2-11.

There is good reason that your teaching is "against the grain" at your congregation. It is similar to the reasons why church congregations which teach `salvation by completed baptism' often try to marginalize anyone among them who reaches Scripturally-accurate conclusions on this subject. The reasons: Scripture does not teach `salvation only upon completed baptism,' and anyone who comes to accurate conclusions of Scripture will oppose such a teaching as well.

It is evident from reading the entirety of Romans 6:2-11 that Paul is using metaphors to make a point: we should treat ourselves as having died to sin.

How do we know that Romans 6:2-11 is using illustrations? Literal reality is that we have not died to sin -- 1 John 1:8-10 makes clear that we still sin. I did not undergo crucifixion -- Romans 6:6. Romans 6:5 also makes it clear: we are baptized "in the likeness of his death."

I think it is strange that you make an exception. If salvation depends upon us arising from a baptism pool, then I do not see how Scripture warrants we can claim exceptions. Scripture does not describe multiple salvation processes, and I think Hebrews specifies that for Christians there is "so great a salvation" -- singular.

As for the rest, with a few adaptations:

Let me start out by saying that I am avid advocate that Christians get baptized. I believe Scripture teaches that Christians should be baptized and as close to pronto as doable. The question I am answering is not `Do Christians have to be baptized?' because the answer to that is yes. The question I am addressing is if baptism is possible without baptism.

These four are "`in your face'" teaching that even believers will be unsaved if they fail to get themselves baptized?

Acts 22:16 -- is the "wash away thy sins" referring to baptism, or "calling on the name of the Lord"?

John 3:5 -- is that talking about baptism? It says "born of water and the Spirit" if I am not mistaken. Given how ancient Hebrew terminology described natural birth, and John 3:3-6, I have a problem believing this passage is talking about baptism.

Mark 16:16, assuming the authenticity of anything after Mark 16:8. "Mark 16:16" goes "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (NKJV). I am missing where it says that `he who believes but is not baptized will be condemned also.'

Acts 2:38 follows Acts 2:37, which asks "brethren, what shall we do" (ASV emphasis mine). Peter replied in Acts 2:38. I present his reply translated with more precision than English is capable of: "Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). What I do not see is a statement of the following nature: `In the general case, people who fail to get baptized will not have their sins taken away.' The word order parallels English, but the grammatical structure points us to `Repent for the remission of sins' and embedded in that is a directive to respond to this repentance by getting themselves baptized.

1 Peter 3:21, in reference to water, when Peter is not cut off mid-sentence: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (NASB). Peter made it clear that the bath in water does not save us. He made it clear that the "appeal to God for a good conscience" is what saves us.

Peter never contradicted himself, nor would he contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. The passages that follow ARE "in your face."

John 3:16-8

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to |condemn| the world; but that the world should be saved through him. |Whoever| believeth on him is not |condemned|: he that believeth not hath been |condemned| already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (ASV with |TNIV|).​

The passage expressly says "he that believeth on him is not condemned."

Peter echoed this teaching of Jesus Christ at Acts 10:43 “everyone that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins” (ASV).

These are universal statements and explicit statements. No person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be condemned. Every person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will "receive remission of sins." This includes those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, yet by some mistake or some misfortune were not baptized.

 

[lbaker]

A couple of thoughts...

To answer the main question, is baptism "essential" for salvation? No, there are examples of un-immersed folks being saved - the thief and possibly Cornelius. So to make an absolute statement that no baptism = go to hell is going beyond what the Bible says. We just don't have a passage for that statement.

Now, having said that, it is obvious to anyone that takes scripture at face value that we are "saved by faith" and also that immersion is a part of this faith in action. The fact that we are saved by faith doesn't have to rule out something actually happening at the point of baptism, as a response of that faith. There are just too many, way too many, passages that link baptism to being forgiven, to receiving the Spirit, to being saved, etc. to insist that God couldn't be choosing to save us as we are immersed, because of our faith and in response to that faith. Peter, Paul, Jesus, etc. obviously connected baptism and salvation. We have to do some real ducking and dodging to get around that.

Of course, the water has no power to save, the act itself doesn't save, there's no such thing as baptismal regeneration - only Jesus' blood can save us, through faith in Him. If God chooses to save us at the point when we are baptized, BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH, that is His business.

Baptism doesn't "cause" our salvation and I don't think anyone who really thinks about it would say that it does.

 

[Andre]

The fact that we are saved by faith doesn't have to rule out something actually happening at the point of baptism, as a response of that faith.

Good point. We can and probably should believe that God is "doing something" when we are baptized, even if baptism is not "salvific". I think the error lies in the belief that baptism is a purely symbolic act.

 

[Darron Steele]

A couple of thoughts...

To answer the main question, is baptism "essential" for salvation? No, there are examples of un-immersed folks being saved - the thief and possibly Cornelius. So to make an absolute statement that no baptism = go to hell is going beyond what the Bible says. We just don't have a passage for that statement.

Very good observation.

Now, having said that, it is obvious to anyone that takes scripture at face value that we are "saved by faith" and also that immersion is a part of this faith in action.

Agreed with wholeheartedly.

As I noted prior, John 3:16-8 and Acts 10:43 explicitly state that those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are not condemned and receive remission of sins.

The fact that we are saved by faith doesn't have to rule out something actually happening at the point of baptism, as a response of that faith. There are just too many, way too many, passages that link baptism to being forgiven, to receiving the Spirit, to being saved, etc. to insist that God couldn't be choosing to save us as we are immersed, because of our faith and in response to that faith.

I have to disagree with you at this point.

Scripture does not teach that we are saved by a response to faith. It says at Ephesians 2:8-10 that we are saved by faith.

If salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Peter, Paul, Jesus, etc. obviously connected baptism and salvation.

I agree in one sense that they are strongly associated. I believe Scripture teaches that a believer's getting baptism shows that s/he is a believer.

I do not think that they associated them causally. If they did, it is not obvious to me. It would in fact, suggest a direct contradiction within Scripture, a possibility I deny. Therefore, the accurate understandings of passages used to teach `salvation upon completed baptism' do not contradict explicit statements of Scripture, and so baptism is nowhere causally connected to salvation.

We have to do some real ducking and dodging to get around that....

From where I sit, we would "have to do some real ducking and dodging" to assert
1) that believers remain unsaved,
2) while still holding to the truth of John 3:16-8 and Acts 10:43.

Of course, the water has no power to save, the act itself doesn't save, there's no such thing as baptismal regeneration - only Jesus' blood can save us, through faith in Him. If God chooses to save us at the point when we are baptized, BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH, that is His business.

Well, He would not create such a system, because He would not be saving us because of our faith, but because of our baptism.

Again, if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Baptism doesn't "cause" our salvation and I don't think anyone who really thinks about it would say that it does.

Right; that is impossible. Ephesians 2:8-10, John 3:16-8, and Acts 10:43 tell us the guarantee of salvation and the human cause of salvation. If biblical faith on the Lord Jesus Christ is not the point at which we are saved, then it is not the guarantee and cause, and those passages are false. I reject any such possiblity.

 

[lbaker]

I have to disagree with you at this point.

If salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.I agree in one sense that they are strongly associated.

Again, if salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

No, no, no, I never said "through faith by baptism". I think you are jumping to conclusions.

That isn't how I would describe it at all.

I think we agree that salvation doesn't literally come from believing alone, but involves a response of some kind - sinners prayer, receive Jesus as Savior, ask Him into your heart, or perhaps, immersion. Just a simple agreement to a set of facts about Jesus is not a faith that brings salvation.

One could just as easily claim that a person was saved by the words they said, or the prayer they prayed as to charge that they were saved "by baptism".

We shouldn't see a conflict between being saved by faith and baptism. The two aren't opposed to each other.

 

[Darron Steele]

No, no, no, I never said "through faith by baptism". I think you are jumping to conclusions.

That isn't how I would describe it at all.

Okay, then let me try again:
If salvation is `through faith upon baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Is the wording more satisfactory? The point is the same.

I think we agree that salvation doesn't literally come from believing alone,

No we would not.

but involves a response of some kind - sinners prayer, receive Jesus as Savior, ask Him into your heart, or perhaps, immersion.

I would deny all this, keeping to Ephesians 2:8-10.

Just a simple agreement to a set of facts about Jesus is not a faith that brings salvation.

Right; in salvation contexts, this is not "faith." A real faith is one that would motivate us to put it into action.

One could just as easily claim that a person was saved by the words they said, or the prayer they prayed as to charge that they were saved "by baptism".

In both cases, they would be wrong. No one is saved by the `sinner's prayer.' If s/he had the biblical faith that motivated that `sinner's prayer' then s/he would have been saved regardless of if s/he had said it or not. S/he would have been saved by that faith.

We shouldn't see a conflict between being saved by faith and baptism. The two aren't opposed to each other.

Hold on here -- no one is saying that if we are saved by faith, then somehow that opposes baptism. I think you will find that most people here believe very strongly that Christians ought to get baptized, but that is not the subject here. We are discussing whether or not salvation depends on completed baptism. Let us keep the issue straight.

I see a conflict between Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) versus `s/he that believeth on him does not receive remission of sins until s/he does something else.' You cannot have `p and not p' both be true. I will always take a direct statement of Scripture.

 

[lbaker]

Okay, then let me try again:
If salvation is `through faith upon baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

Is the wording more satisfactory? The point is the same.

Les here: That's like saying because a person has the same faith before/after a sinners prayer, or profession of faith, etc. that people think the prayer or profession saved them rather than their faith.

Hold on here -- no one is saying that if we are saved by faith, then somehow that opposes baptism. I think you will find that most people here believe very strongly that Christians ought to get baptized, but that is not the subject here. We are discussing whether or not salvation depends on completed baptism. Let us keep the issue straight.

Les here: Sorry, should have been more precise. Should have said something like a conflict between saved by faith and saved by faith at baptism.

I see a conflict between Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) versus `s/he that believeth on him does not receive remission of sins until s/he does something else.' You cannot have `p and not p' both be true. I will always take a direct statement of Scripture.

Les here: Wouldn't you agree that everyone that believed was gonna be immersed? No need to mention baptism everytime the principle of salvation by faith is discussed in scripture. Otherwise you have Peter contradicting himself between Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:43. Belief in Jesus was the big hurdle to get over. Anyone that could get past that was gonna be immersed is the implication taking the two verses together.

My answers are in bold above.

 

[Darron Steele]

My answers are in bold above.

I see a conflict between Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) versus `s/he that believeth on him does not receive remission of sins until s/he does something else.' You cannot have `p and not p' both be true. I will always take a direct statement of Scripture.

Les here: Wouldn't you agree that everyone that believed was gonna be immersed?

Well, not necessarily.

Therein lies the problem. Not every person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ can immediately get themselves baptized. With every delay, there is potential for a hindrance to it happening.

Not every Baptist is baptized. When I was a new Christian, my congregation was Baptist, and it withheld baptism from me when I first wanted to be baptized. Delayed baptism was a precaution against baptizing non-Christians. Baptists are not the only denomination which has congregations that withhold baptism or encourage converts to delay.

Some Christians are not baptized because they underwent some sort of ritual called "baptism" when they were not yet believers -- and think that they are baptized. Some Christians are not baptized because they think a sprinkling or pouring ceremony they underwent was a baptism. Christians tend to be reverent about baptism, and many think that if they are legitimately baptized, they would sin in being baptized `again.' Many Quakers/Friends think it would be a sin to be baptized in water. We also need to think about death-experience converts.

You see, this is not a game or some abstract intellectual dispute. Not every believer gets baptized, so this is a matter with real world relevance.

No need to mention baptism everytime the principle of salvation by faith is discussed in scripture. Otherwise you have Peter contradicting himself between Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:43. Belief in Jesus was the big hurdle to get over. Anyone that could get past that was gonna be immersed is the implication taking the two verses together.

It looks like you jumped right over the discussion of Acts 2:38 when you started posting. No problem. I will repeat the `meat' of it:

Acts 2:38 follows Acts 2:37, which asks "brethren, what shall we do" (ASV emphasis mine). Peter replied in Acts 2:38. I present his reply translated with more precision than English is capable of: "Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). What I do not see is a statement of the following nature: `In the general case, people who fail to get baptized will not have their sins taken away.' The word order parallels English, but the grammatical structure points us to `Repent for the remission of sins' and embedded in that is a directive to respond to this repentance by getting themselves baptized.

You are exactly right: Scripture does not contradict itself.

Acts 2:38 says "Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). The Portuguese grammatical structure makes clear that Peter is teaching `repentance for the remission of sins.' As repentance is a component of biblical faith, Acts 2:38 does not contradict Acts 10:43, which states "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Les here: Sorry, should have been more precise. Should have said something like a conflict between saved by faith and saved by faith at baptism.

You stating that a contradiction is not a contradiction would not make it cease to be a contradiction. Saying `Well, there should not be a contradiction' does not change that. A statement and its negation compose together a contradiction.

If we face contradiction between a true statement versus a supposition, we cannot hold on to suppositions and assert that there should be no contradiction. To avoid a contradiction from a true statement versus a supposition, the thing to do is abandon the supposition.

If salvation is `through faith upon baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism.

I see a conflict between Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) versus `s/he that believeth on him does not receive remission of sins until s/he does something else.' You cannot have `p and not p' both be true. I will always take a direct statement of Scripture.

 

[lbaker]

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with an English translation.

But, if it did read "repent for the remission of sins" or something similar, you still have an action of some kind occuring before salvation is granted. So now we have a situation where someone could say their repenting saved them just as easily as you say someone would say their baptism saved them.

Plus, you have a conflict with 10:43 if we are interpreting 10:43 as strictly a case of belief and nothing else because repenting is an action that would have to be added to belief.

I do agree that repentance is a component of saving faith, just as baptism, or confession of Christ are.

Also, I agree there are instances where folks don't/can't be immersed. Those are the exceptions which can't dictate what the norm is supposed to be. Don't you agree that in New Testament times it was the norm for all believers to be immersed?

 

[Darron Steele]

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with an English translation.

But, if it did read "repent for the remission of sins" or something similar, you still have an action of some kind occuring before salvation is granted. So now we have a situation where someone could say their repenting saved them just as easily as you say someone would say their baptism saved them.

I do not see how.

Baptism is an act subsequent to faith. Repentance is not. I do not see how repentance can be separated from faith. How can anyone really, genuinely, truly believe the Gospel and not simultaneously repent? Anyone who says s/he believes but will not repent is someone assenting to truths of the Gospel, but s/he actually neither repents nor believes.

Baptism is not done the instant of faith. It cannot be. Even if s/he happens to be in enough water the moment s/he believes, it takes a time interval to go under and come back up.

Plus, you have a conflict with 10:43 if we are interpreting 10:43 as strictly a case of belief and nothing else because repenting is an action that would have to be added to belief.

Trying to convince me that Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) does not mean what it says will not convince me to your view. However, I think the problem is your meaning of "belief" here -- I think you mean it as simple intellectual assent.

"Belief" in the saving sense is a lot more than intellectual assent. Hebrews 11:1 describes “faith” as “an assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of unseen realities” (NBV). That is a "conviction."

I do agree that repentance is a component of saving faith, just as baptism, or confession of Christ are.

I do not see how regarding the latter two. I could not be baptized the instant I believed the Gospel and turned to follow Christ. I am also under the impression that the mouth speaks what the mind conjures up before.

As for repentance, I do not see how it can be considered distinct from faith. When I was convicted to the truth of the Gospel, I repented the same instant.

Also, I agree there are instances where folks don't/can't be immersed. Those are the exceptions which can't dictate what the norm is supposed to be. Don't you agree that in New Testament times it was the norm for all believers to be immersed?

Yeah, but again, that is not the issue of this thread.

If you want to discuss whether or not Christians ought to get themselves baptized promptly, that is a worthy thread, and I would probably be right there `amen'-ing you a lot. However, that is not this thread.

The question of this thread is whether or not salvation depends upon arising from a baptismal pool. As has been shown, the answer is `no.' Acts 10:43 has "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) -- any teaching that a believer's salvation is granted upon completed baptism goes directly against this. If a believer was a believer, but had not received remission of sins, this passage would be false. That is not compatible with Scripture.

 

[lbaker]

Baptism is an act subsequent to faith. Repentance is not. I do not see how repentance can be separated from faith. How can anyone really, genuinely, truly believe the Gospel and not simultaneously repent? Anyone who says s/he believes but will not repent is someone assenting to truths of the Gospel, but s/he actually neither repents nor believes.

If repentance was automatic upon belief or faith then why did Peter have to tell the folks in Acts 2 that they needed to "repent and be baptized"?

 

[Darron Steele]

If repentance was automatic upon belief or faith then why did Peter have to tell the folks in Acts 2 that they needed to "repent and be baptized"?

Because they did not believe yet.

They knew the truths, and assented in great distress. They knew that they should not have rebelled against Jesus Christ. Still, they did not believe because they did not know to repent of their rebellion against Jesus Christ. That is why Peter told them to.

Now, again, does Acts 10:43 mean what we both understand it to say? Is it possible for a believer to still not have remission of sins?

 

[lbaker]

Because they did not believe yet.

They knew the truths, and assented in great distress. They knew that they should not have rebelled against Jesus Christ. Still, they did not believe because they did not know to repent of their rebellion against Jesus Christ. That is why Peter told them to.

Now, again, does Acts 10:43 mean what we both understand it to say? Is it possible for a believer to still not have remission of sins?

What? Of course they believed. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so distressed and afraid and asked Peter what to do.

Yes, it is possible. I see Acts 10:43 as Peter giving the big picture, the principle of salvation based on faith in Christ, but leaving out the "fine print".

 

[Darron Steele]

Because they did not believe yet.

They knew the truths, and assented in great distress. They knew that they should not have rebelled against Jesus Christ. Still, they did not believe because they did not know to repent of their rebellion against Jesus Christ. That is why Peter told them to.

What? Of course they believed. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so distressed and afraid and asked Peter what to do.

Without repentance there is no belief, just worthless assent -- as has already been explained to you.

It is like the "believe" of unbeliever who says `Yeah, Jesus is the Lord; yeah, I know I should not do the things I do; no, I will not change and follow Him.' The person does not really believe He is Lord because otherwise s/he would submit to Him as Lord.

Hebrews 11:1 describes “faith” as “an assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of unseen realities” (NBV). A pproved "faith" is a "conviction."

Now, regarding Acts 10:43 with "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV), I asked

...Is it possible for a believer to still not have remission of sins?

Yes, it is possible. I see Acts 10:43 as Peter giving the big picture, the principle of salvation based on faith in Christ, but leaving out the "fine print".

Well, Acts 10:43 says something the exact opposite of your opinion.

It is my understanding that Acts 10:43-8 is believed to have narrated an actual event in non-pictorial language. You have not explained how a person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ cannot have received remission of sins, yet the statement of Acts 10:43 still be true. Your best effort has been appealing to other texts, thinking that somehow their existence nullifes that contradiction. All other passages can be understood in ways that do not contradict this passage -- but you have not shown the same of your view. Finally, you were asked "Is it possible for a believer to still not have remission of sins" and you answered "Yes, it is possible." When I look up at the blue text, I see that your answer is a direct negation of that passage.

I try to stick to the Scriptures. When a person decides to retain an opinion that is in direct contradition to an express statement of Scripture, there is no point in arguing the subject from Scripture.

I believe you would never knowingly retain an opinion contrary to Scripture. I realize you insist that your opinion is not contrary to Scripture.

Still, the text states one thing and you just asserted a direct negation. When a person decides to retain an opinion that is in direct contradition to an express statement of Scripture, there is no point in arguing the subject from Scripture.

I have no bad feelings toward you, I am way too busy to waste any time or energy on that type of an argument. There are too many other things to do.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Accidental duplicate. Sorry.]

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I go against the grain in regards to Baptism at my church, I do believe that Baptism saves you. With that said, I do believe that you are not able to be baptized or in the case of early Christians that believed and were murdered, they were saved by a Baptism of desire. If we have the ability to be Baptized then we should. Just my 2 cents.





Acts 2:38
[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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Acts 22:16

[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'


Rom .6:3
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death



John 3:5

[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.


Mark 16:16
[16] He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.


1 Peter 3:21

[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

GE
I go against the grain in regards to Baptism at ANY church.
I too believe that Baptism saves you - the Baptism of Jesus Christ: with and in His Holy Spirit.
With that said, I do believe that you are not able to be baptized by any other or in any other way.
In the case of early Christians that believed, they were saved by the very same Baptism of Christ.
If we have the ability to baptize, then we should have been Apostles.

Just simple Gospel facts.

Acts 2:38
[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 not, 'in water'! --- and thus being baptised, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not because baptised in water!

Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and: Wash away your sins calling on his name.' Not, calling on water-baptism!

Rom .6:3
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into HIS death --- NOT, 'into water'!

John 3:5
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not, baptised with water!
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Water and the Spirit --- of eternal LIFE Christ Jesus ---, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
[16] He who believing-being-baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

1 Peter 3:21
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Darron Steele]

Gerhard Ebersoehn: Fundamental Only had been comprehensively answered. He has not answered in several days.

This thread was dead. The issue had been laid to rest.

I really wish you had not taken this thread and made it a platform to promote your view that water baptism ought to be prohibited. The clientele on this board tends to stick with the text of Scripture, so no Christian here is likely to buy into your notion.

The issue of this thread had been laid to rest. This thread was dead. Let it be.

 

[Brother Bob]

GE
I go against the grain in regards to Baptism at ANY church.
I too believe that Baptism saves you - the Baptism of Jesus Christ: with and in His Holy Spirit.
With that said, I do believe that you are not able to be baptized by any other or in any other way.
In the case of early Christians that believed, they were saved by the very same Baptism of Christ.
If we have the ability to baptize, then we should have been Apostles.

Just simple Gospel facts.

Acts 2:38
[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 not, 'in water'! --- and thus being baptised, you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not because baptised in water!

Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and: Wash away your sins calling on his name.' Not, calling on water-baptism!

Rom .6:3
[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into HIS death --- NOT, 'into water'!

John 3:5
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not, baptised with water!
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Water and the Spirit --- of eternal LIFE Christ Jesus ---, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
[16] He who believing-being-baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

1 Peter 3:21
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

You nailed it GE:

BBob,

 

[Darron Steele]

So, Brother Bob: is it also your view that water baptism is prohibited Christians?

That has been G. E.'s position on threads before, and do not be surprised if G. E. is hoping to raise that specter here.

The actual issue of this thread had been laid to rest. This thread was dead. Let it be.

 

[Brother Bob]

So, Brother Bob: is it also your view that water baptism is prohibited Christians?

That has been G. E.'s position on threads before, and do not be surprised if G. E. is hoping to raise that specter here.

No Sir;
My belief is that we are saved by the Holy Ghost baptism. I believe the water baptism is just to answer a good consecious towards God and not the putting away the filth of the flesh. I also believe the water baptism shows the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. I also believe the water baptism is a confession before all to see, that you confess Christ. I am a strong believer in the water baptism, but believe some have went to heaven without it. Our brethren were carrying a brother to the water to be baptized, but he died on the way in thier arms. I believe he made it. Of course who knows for sure except God. Again, the Holy Ghost baptism is what saves and if you are not saved when you go to the water, you will go in a dry sinner and come out a wet one.

BBob,