-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why does faith+works=not saved?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Wait, thats right, I already answered them for you.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
When I bring up Romans 11 you say you don't have to read it because you choose to think of Hebrews 6 instead.
When I point out your failing in Matt 18 and in Romans 2 -- you simply find another excuse to avoid the devastating case that scripture makes against your tradition rather than actually addressing the devastating case the Bible has made against man's traditions.
How much more obvious can this be?
In Christ,
Bob
When I point out your failing in Matt 18 and in Romans 2 -- you simply find another excuse to avoid the devastating case that scripture makes against your tradition rather than actually addressing the devastating case the Bible has made against man's traditions.
How much more obvious can this be?
In Christ,
Bob
If I seen it as so "devastating" I would abandon the doctrine. I understand God's salvation plan...all God...none me! I only accepted a free offer, and so I be! I was born that which I am in the flesh, this cannot change. I was born that which I am in spirit, this cannot change! Praise be only to the glory of God. And with that I must truly sign off. See ya later
God Bless!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed you would. As would the Catholic with Purgatory and the Mormon with the Joseph Smith and the JW with rejection of the Trinity and the Jew with their rejection of Jesus Christ...
In all cases all would gladly abandon the error that they hold if they could truly be convinced that the blatant obvious texts of scripture that so devastate their beliefs and traditions could not be "bent" in some way as to turn away from being such a bold statement against their views.
Consider the RC's on the subject of prayers to the dead EVEN though Isaiah 8 specifically says we should not appeal to the dead on behalf of the living! No matter how clear the text - they cling to error "anyway" and seek to find some way to bend the text.
But that is the beauty of exegesis! It is an objective standard - that employs RULES!! If you choose to reject the rules you get eisegesis and then "yes" they could ALL take some text to meaning they clearly reject and use it as a tool against another text they ALSO reject - just as you are doing.
All of them would gladly resort to such a method.
As I pointed out - the method is available to all - but it violates the rules of exegesis.
sleep well
In Christ,
Bob
Romans 11 is a great chapter! I like verse 6 in particular.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Salvation is by grace, and thus it is no more of works; otherwise grace would not be grace. Paul defines grace quite well and very clearly here. Salvation is all of the grace of God, and not of works at all. If works be a part of salvation then salvation is not of grace at all. It is either all of grace or it is not of grace at all. If works is included then grace is automatically excluded by the very definition of grace. The definition of grace must omit works. Salvation therefore cannot include works. It is as Paul said:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
No matter how much these verses are stressed; there are still those that will try to deny them. Salvation is not of works. There it is in black and white: not of works!
It is of grace. Grace, by definition, cannot include works. If it be by works it is not of grace. Read again Romans 11:6
It is by through faith that ye are saved. One could be faithful to the text and say that it is by faith and faith alone. That is why Paul adds "not of works," because it is through faith alone. There are no works in salvation. There can't be. Jesus paid it all. He paid the full penalty for us. He atoned (paid the penalty) for our sins. The price that he paid (the payment of his blood) was sufficient in the eyes of God, that man has nothing to add to that payment--not baptism, church membership, confirmation, any sacrament, nothing. It was His sacrifice and his alone that paid for our sins. In that sacrifice we must put our faith. It is the only way that one can receive the free gift of salvation.
DHK
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I agee with you DHK that there are sections of Romans 11 that are less confronting to OSAS than others.
I am simply pointing out the more "inconvenient" section - that adds refinement and context to vs 6.
There is no doubt that the point in vs 6 about works not being the basis for our acceptance with God - is truth. God does not look at the lost and say "which one was really good today - because that is the one I will cause to be born again and saved".
This is the argument of vs 6 - but the issue of "fallen because they did not CONTINUE in belief" remains from Romans 11.
In Christ,
Bob
I am simply pointing out the more "inconvenient" section - that adds refinement and context to vs 6.
There is no doubt that the point in vs 6 about works not being the basis for our acceptance with God - is truth. God does not look at the lost and say "which one was really good today - because that is the one I will cause to be born again and saved".
This is the argument of vs 6 - but the issue of "fallen because they did not CONTINUE in belief" remains from Romans 11.
So also the points of Matt 18 and forgiveness revoked for those already forgiven - "because" they encounter a situation where the refused to forgive others AS THEY were freely forgiven.
In Christ,
Bob
Jesus said to the thief on the cross (he who was not baptized) "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Christ died for his sins as well. The one baptism obviously is when a person is baptized into Christ at the point of salvation when he puts his faith in Christ and is saved. I was saved when I trusted Christ as my Saviour; when I believed on him. I was not baptized until two years later. Would I have perished in Hell if I had died in those intervening two years? Yes or no?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really want to go down this path? I know your tricks. If I say you were and still are on the road to hell, even though you are 100% sincere, you would try and have me banned for "breaking the rules", so I am not going to fall into your trap.
Let's look at the scriptures. Do we have any example of someone waiting 2 years to be baptized? No. How about 1 year? No, again, How about 6 months? NO. How about 1 month? No. How about 2 weeks? No. How about 1 week? No. How about 1 day? Not even one day. Imagine that. Every example we have, the people were baptized that same day.
Obviously, they placed a little more importance on baptism than you do, that is undeniable based on actions.
Did the thief, that everyone seems to keep bringing up, live under the old covenant or new coventant? When Jesus spoke those words to him, was the new law in effect?
Read Heb 9:16-17, For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
I can prove to you through the scriptures that I am right.
It is simple.
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Who was Jesus talking to? His Apostles. Where was this message to be preached? The whole world (Mark 16:15).
Was this water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism? Obviously it was water baptism.
Can you baptize others with the Holy Spirit? No, that was a promise from Jesus and it was something that He would do. If you cannot baptize others with the Holy Spirit, then you cannot keep Matt 28:19-20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.." UNLESS it is water baptism.
Is this command valid today? How could it end? They were told to teach, baptize, and teach again and those who were taught and baptized were to be taught to go teach and baptize others and teach them to go teach and baptize others, and so forth which continues until NOW!
Matt 28 is the parallel passage of Mark 16. Jesus was therefore speaking of water baptism in Mark 16:16, and it was the the whole world.
The very first sermon following Jesus commission is recorded in Acts 2. These people were baptized in water for the remission of sins. As we've discussed many times, eis means unto not because of and never once is it translated as "because".
Philip preached Christ to the people of Samaria and they were baptized in water. Then he preached Jesus to the Eunuch and the first words out of the eunuch's mouth were, "See, here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized." (Acts 8)
Preaching Jesus includes instructions for being baptized in water. The message of Jesus hasn't changed.
Therefore, the one baptism in Eph 4:5 is water baptism.
The baptism in Rom 6 is water baptism.
The baptism is in Gal 3:26-27 is water baptism.
The baptism in I Pet 3:21 is obviously water baptism.
What was the remedy for those who were improperly baptized in water found in Acts 19:1-5? They were baptized in the name of the Lord, or by his authority. We read about that authority in Matt 28:18-20, where he commanded them to go teach, baptize and teach.
It couldn't be made any more simple than what our Lord said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".
This verse is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.
No, No, NO!
You just missed the point. Jesus wasn't actually telling him that giving all that he had was the one thing he lacked in order to be saved! For one, how many of us do that, and how many Jews keep all the commandments the ruler kept, plus happened to give up all they had also? Would they have been saved by their works? No, there would always be something else; they never even thought of. THAT was the point.
What Jesus was showing was that no matter how much you think you are keeping the commandments, you always end up lacking something; so if you are trusting in keeping the commandments you will not be saves that way.</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree; I think it is plain from this passage that, while God does not demand of us all that we all give up our possessions, nevertheless, He does demand that we do something sacrificial; Jim I think was pretty close to the mark in his post.
You missed out the bit about sanctifying grace.
But then these "misunderstanding" Catholics must not be doing something if they don't have these "works of grace", and if that's true, then is it a work of grace? </font>[/QUOTE]They may be resisting God's grace which is why they misunderstand. Od they may be cooperating with it but that grace may not yet have brought them to a fullness of revelation of truth on that particular subject; that is a matter between them and God and it is not for you or I to judge them
Jesus said to the thief on the cross (he who was not baptized) "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Christ died for his sins as well. The one baptism obviously is when a person is baptized into Christ at the point of salvation when he puts his faith in Christ and is saved. I was saved when I trusted Christ as my Saviour; when I believed on him. I was not baptized until two years later. Would I have perished in Hell if I had died in those intervening two years? Yes or no?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really want to go down this path? I know your tricks. If I say you were and still are on the road to hell, even though you are 100% sincere, you would try and have me banned for "breaking the rules", so I am not going to fall into your trap.</font>[/QUOTE]And you would be way out of line for suggesting that. Now, DHK and I have had and will no doubt continue to have our disagreements and I expect I'm not his favourite person on this board; but I don't doubt for a moment (in so far as one can know someone else's salvation) the fact of his salvation.
Ok, so let me ask a question of you similar to that in my OP: if you believe that water baptism effects salvation ex opera operare as it were, then look around you: I think it's a fair guess that all the Baptists on this board have been baptised in water and that, therefore, according to your soteriology, they must be saved regardless of what they think of the efficacy of baptism.
By the way, God didn't set any standard, He is the standard by His own nature. We just try to define those standards from the scriptures.
On another note; I have been double blessed and saved for sure cos I have been both sprinkled and immersed...wait, there is also pouring.....maybe I ain't complete afterall. But I am Cockney and surely that counts for something. Love this theology!
Cheers,
Jim
On another note; I have been double blessed and saved for sure cos I have been both sprinkled and immersed...wait, there is also pouring.....maybe I ain't complete afterall. But I am Cockney and surely that counts for something. Love this theology!
Cheers,
Jim
No, I am not deliberately "baiting" you. If you want to preface your statements "according to my theology or 'COC theology,' this is my belief..." just to be on the safe side that would be ok. But I understand that you would be answering according to your theological position, not according to a personal vendetta. That is where there is a difference. Personal attacks are not tolerated. I often say that a Catholic cannot believe and understand the doctrines of the Catholic church and be a Christian at the same time. The two systems are diametrically opposed to each other.
To use another example. My daughter just professed salvation two weeks ago. I believe that she is saved, and so does she, as well as the other leaders in the church, according to the proffesion of faith that she has made. That was two weeks ago. She is still not baptiazed, and will not be baptized for at least another week. Is she saved or not? Does she poseess the gift of eternal life or not. {"He that hath the son hath life; he that hath not the son hath not life."
She is not baptized. I believe she is saved. Do you?
Let's look at the scriptures. Do we have any example of someone waiting 2 years to be baptized? No. How about 1 year? No, again, How about 6 months? NO. How about 1 month? No. How about 2 weeks? No. How about 1 week? No. How about 1 day? Not even one day. Imagine that. Every example we have, the people were baptized that same day.[/qb][/quote]Are you absolutely sure about that? Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 different churches. Can you vouch for the time and baptism of each of his converts? The membership of the church at the city of Jerusalem rose to over 100,000. Can you vouch for all the baptisms of all the members of that church? What about the church at Antioch which also became a church, like that of Jerusalem--very large? Can you vouch for all the baptisms of all the converts of that church? You have made a statement akin to a universal negative--a logical fallacy--a statement that is impossible to prove. "There isn't any believer in the New Testament churches that eitehr was not baptized or was not baptized immediately after salvation." That is an impossible statement to prove. It is a universal negative.
Baptism is an action, a work done by man, just as any other work that Christ commands of us: prayer, witnessing, fellowship, singing psalms and spiritual songs, giving to the local church, etc. But none of these are essential to our salvation. They, like the command of Baptism, follow salvation; are not part of it.
non sequitor.
Jesus also said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me.
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Christ is our salvation. He is the only way to Heaven. He didn't say: "Baptism is the way." He said: "I am the way."
Having gone,
Make disciples
Baptizing them,
Teaching them,
The making disciples is the most important part of this command, every other part subject to it. In order for a person to become a disciple he must first hear the gospel, and then act in faith by believing it (trustng Christ as Saviour). After he is saved (born again), then he is able to be baptized (an act of man), and then taught some more (another act of man). In no way baptism is a part of salvation. The verse in Mark 16 is simply a summary of this passsage in Mat.28:19,20.
Not according to John the Baptist. I would rather believe the Bible and John the Baptist over you.
The Ethiopian Eunuch confessed Christ as his Saviour and the was baptized. Baptism had nothing to do with his salvation; nothing! In fact he had to wait til they found water unti he was baptized. What if they had never found the water and died in the desert. Would he have gone to heaven, having heard the gospel, professing Christ as Saviour, but just not being baptized??
You are wrong.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
If baptism was so important why does Paul draw such a clear distinction between baptism and the gospel. He tells the Corinthians that God did not call him to baptize. But rather God called him to preach the gospel. That's plain English. Or do you need the Greek explained here as well. It means: There is no baptism in the gospel and there never was.
DHK
Eric, let me clarify what I wrote earlier on this whole 'grace' 'working' thing. if a Catholic fails to do good deeds in spite of being perfectly able to do them, then he's exactly stopping God from saving him. "Being saved" is not some sort of on-off switch which has utterly no causal connection to the way a person then thinks, speaks, and acts. Yes, we can find unfortunate human beings where that seems almost the case, but it is because they can basically not think, speak and act at all. Most Catholics and indeed most of us, are fortunately not in that situation.
No, I am not deliberately "baiting" you. If you want to preface your statements "according to my theology or 'COC theology,' this is my belief..." just to be on the safe side that would be ok. But I understand that you would be answering according to your theological position, not according to a personal vendetta. That is where there is a difference. Personal attacks are not tolerated. I often say that a Catholic cannot believe and understand the doctrines of the Catholic church and be a Christian at the same time. The two systems are diametrically opposed to each other.
To use another example. My daughter just professed salvation two weeks ago. I believe that she is saved, and so does she, as well as the other leaders in the church, according to the proffesion of faith that she has made. That was two weeks ago. She is still not baptiazed, and will not be baptized for at least another week. Is she saved or not? Does she poseess the gift of eternal life or not. {"He that hath the son hath life; he that hath not the son hath not life."
She is not baptized. I believe she is saved. Do you?
Let's look at the scriptures. Do we have any example of someone waiting 2 years to be baptized? No. How about 1 year? No, again, How about 6 months? NO. How about 1 month? No. How about 2 weeks? No. How about 1 week? No. How about 1 day? Not even one day. Imagine that. Every example we have, the people were baptized that same day.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you absolutely sure about that? Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 different churches. Can you vouch for the time and baptism of each of his converts? The membership of the church at the city of Jerusalem rose to over 100,000. Can you vouch for all the baptisms of all the members of that church? What about the church at Antioch which also became a church, like that of Jerusalem--very large? Can you vouch for all the baptisms of all the converts of that church? You have made a statement akin to a universal negative--a logical fallacy--a statement that is impossible to prove. "There isn't any believer in the New Testament churches that eitehr was not baptized or was not baptized immediately after salvation." That is an impossible statement to prove. It is a universal negative.
Baptism is an action, a work done by man, just as any other work that Christ commands of us: prayer, witnessing, fellowship, singing psalms and spiritual songs, giving to the local church, etc. But none of these are essential to our salvation. They, like the command of Baptism, follow salvation; are not part of it.
non sequitor.
Jesus also said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me.
Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Christ is our salvation. He is the only way to Heaven. He didn't say: "Baptism is the way." He said: "I am the way."
Having gone,
Make disciples
Baptizing them,
Teaching them,
The making disciples is the most important part of this command, every other part subject to it. In order for a person to become a disciple he must first hear the gospel, and then act in faith by believing it (trustng Christ as Saviour). After he is saved (born again), then he is able to be baptized (an act of man), and then taught some more (another act of man). In no way baptism is a part of salvation. The verse in Mark 16 is simply a summary of this passsage in Mat.28:19,20.
Not according to John the Baptist. I would rather believe the Bible and John the Baptist over you.
The Ethiopian Eunuch confessed Christ as his Saviour and the was baptized. Baptism had nothing to do with his salvation; nothing! In fact he had to wait til they found water unti he was baptized. What if they had never found the water and died in the desert. Would he have gone to heaven, having heard the gospel, professing Christ as Saviour, but just not being baptized??
You are wrong.
I just figured out the difference between you and me. You have faith in what God did not say and I have faith in what God did say.
Every recorded example of baptism occured on the same day. There is not one recorded example of anyone waiting to be baptized! Just because you can't determine when all were baptized, you cannot ignore those detailed descriptions that do tell us.
Acts 2:41 - Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Clearly water baptism on the same day)
Acts 8:12 - 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. (water baptism -Doesn't say if it was on same day they believed.)
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (Same Day - water baptism)
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Same Day- water baptism)
Acts 16:15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us. (Appears to be same day since Paul had been traveling and ends up staying with Lydia - no indication it was not water baptism)
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. (Not only did they not wait until morning, but the action was done "immediately" - water bapism)
Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. (Doesn't say. Note, the Corinthians were baptized, it just wasn't Paul that did very much of the baptizing - See I Cor 1. water baptism)
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Obviously immediate water baptism)
Acts 9:18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
AND
Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ (Immediate water baptism after he was told what he MUST do).
These are the detailed examples we have from the book of Acts. Not one time was anyone told to wait two weeks or two years to be baptized in water.
This is the simple truth, told in love. Anyone told to wait to be baptized is told to do something contrary to every example we have on water baptism. It is without biblical precedent or authorithy. That is undeniable. Anyone who would tell someone to wait does not place the same importance on water baptism that the God breathed scriptures do.
Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". (Mark 16:16). That unintrepreted statement is either true or false. There is not one scripture that negates this passage, yet so many dismiss these words of our Lord as unimportant, irrelevant, and unessential.
Today, there is one baptism (Eph 4:5), yet you say there are at least two baptisms. Why are you baptized in water at all? That is extremely inconsistent, in my determination.
Here's where your whole argument falls to pieces. You think that there are two baptisms when Paul plainly says there is one baptism (Eph 4:5).
The baptism in Rom 6 cannot be water baptism because that would mean that water baptism puts us into Christ...that water baptism is how we come in contact with the death of Christ...that we are raised from the watery grave to walk in newness of life...
The baptism in Gal 3:26-27 cannot be water baptism because that would mean that we are childern of God by faith because we have been baptized in water.
The baptism in I Pet 3:21 can't be water baptism because it says it saves us, even though it is a clear reference to water baptism.
If there is just one baptism and it is not water baptism, then baptism in water should have no place in the church today. Otherwise, there are two baptisms, not one.
Of all this, here is the one question I would really like answered: Is the baptism in Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16 water baptism?
By the way, I appreciate your zeal, and I mean that as the highest form of compliment.
You don't appear to have faith in what God said. What did God say in 1Cor.1:17,18 through the hand of Paul. He clearly said that baptism was not part of the gospel. Paul clearly said that God had not sent him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. It is clearly said that that the preaching of the gospel does not include baptism, and as Paul preached the gospel, as far as his preaching the gospel was concerned baptism wasn't even important to him. Yet you have not addressed this question, and seem to have no answer for this portion of God's Word. Perhaps it is not important to you.
DHK
But it's not just anything, or spme particular THING we sacrifice. The ruler's riches were an example of a spiritual idol that stood in the way of God in his life.
True: look what he said:
Certainly we must give up something in the process and it is self. Until we surrender self, humanly speaking, understanding grace and subsequent faith is impossible.
I reiterate, the giving up is NOT the redeeming factor, it is the human path of surrender.....I cannot be lost until I admit I am lost. The fact I am lost, but refuse to admit it, does not mean I am not lost.
The sacntifying grace is God's act of declaring us saves, not something we do. Else, it is not true grace, but once again, mere instructions for works, and works and grace are clearly contrasted in Rom.4:4 and 11:6.
You kind of are judging them by suggesting they are "resisting" grace, or have some incomplete revelation, and thus not of the "good" Catholics.
Stopping God from saving him? Where do you get something like that from? (I know the scriptures you may read that into, but it's the interpretation of the scriptures into this in the first place I'm questioning).
In that kind of system, God really doesn't do anything, and let's call it what it is, the person is saving himself, with God simply proclaiming him saved, or something like that and it is never realized in this life, if it is something that is "stopped" the moment one fails to do some works. Once again, it becomes all about "making it" and many of your
"misunderstanding Catholics" have gotten the way they are because of this "making it" mindset, where men decide what good works are, and think salvation is from the "good" outweighing the "bad".
I pointed out a long time ago, mm, that the reason people do not get baptized immediately is because they way the Church is set up today. Baptism has taken on the meaning of joining a particular congregation, denomination or sect, and most will not baptize someone on the spot, but run them through a discipleship course, and try to make sure he is genuine. Then, they often pick one day to baptize several people in one "ceremony". In many cases, the altar call is what "replaced" baptism as the "on the spot" sign of salvation. It may not be authorized by scripture, but you cannot deny a person salvation just because a Church organization makes him wait. (and one of you said that you would baptize on the spot, but I find it hard to believe a CofC would baptize someone into their church so fast wothout making sure he is indoctrinated with CofC teaching).
Hope of Glory
New Member
Baptism is a symbol of death to self. It's a commitment, not a sign of salvation. (After all, Jesus didn't need to be saved.) Jesus waited until he was prepared to enter the ministry (30) to be baptized.
A young child, either physically or spiritually, is not prepared nor capable of making such a commitment.
A young child, either physically or spiritually, is not prepared nor capable of making such a commitment.
A Baptist believes that baptism follows salvation and is symbolic of his salvation--his old life of sin buried, and raised again to a new life in Christ.
The COC beleives in the heresy of baptismal regeneration, that it is impossible to be saved without being baptized. That is why baptism is so close to the profession of faith. It is part of the salvation process. They believe in salvation by works--that there are five (if I remember correctly) separate works to salvation--faith + confession + repentance + belief + baptism = salvation. (I might have one of them wrong.) Nevertheless there are five separate acts to salvation. It is salvation by works. Baptism is one of those acts. It is part of salvation. In their theology it is impossible to be saved without it.
DHK