Water Baptism is ESSENTIAL to salvation!

FoC · Goldfish Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 62

rjustice7....
Thanks for the post, bro...but unless Im blind you seem to have ignored the question laid before you.

Could you possibly give me an answer to this situation?

FoC · Goldfish Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 62

ragman13 · German Shepherd Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 325

Hello all, how are you doing? I as a Baptist do believe that you should be baptized but do feel that it is a bit of a stretch to say that one must be baptized in order for God's grace to provide salvation.

Let’s try a little story.

Hi my name is Nicodemus I sat with Jesus once and spoke with Him about salvation and during our conversation He never once said that I must be baptized in order to receive salvation from God. So sir what must I do; Christ told me that all I needed to do was believe, and here you are telling me that I must also be baptized. I'm sorry but I must believe Jesus when He said

rjustice7 · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: Hmm...

FoC,

I'll explain in a little more in detail what I believe on this question you have brought before me. Ok, in the Old Testament they would have a sacrifice that would roll their sins ahead 1 hear. This was required of the Jews. What if someone died in that time before they could have their sins rolled ahead? God never stopped requiring it of His people. Do you think all of those people perished? Of course not. This is basically the same thing, just under the new covenant. We have to understand that God's love and mercy endureth forever. He is our judge. He knows the intents of our heart. I have already explained a few times that I believe if a man/woman is made aware of what they must do, and plan on doing it, and they die before they get the opportunity, God would honor that. God is not limited as we are. Using this story and assuming that because baptism is commanded biblically, this man is going to hell, is like saying God has no power to be the judge. And yes these situations happen often, but this is still a hypothetical situation. It's a what if this question. It's using a certain situation to say that the whole process isn't right. I cannot base my beliefs on these situations. I have to believe that God is a just God. I go by the scripture rather than hypothetical situations...

Mark 16:16- He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21- The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Acts 2:38- Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 28:19 (A commandment from our Lord)- Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The problem with using hypothetical situations where someone dies before they can be baptized, is that we're letting special situations dictate what we believe rather than what the scripture states. There are going to be situations like that of course, just like in the Old Testament, people died all the time I'm sure before they could sacrifice to have their sins rolled ahead. Did they stop sacrificing just because of that? No, because they went by God's instruction, and God didn't say to stop because of these situations. Why should we do that with baptism? Also, do you know for sure, that the thief had not been baptized by John the baptist? You know this 100% for sure? Truthfully, no one knows this, they only assume, and it makes sense that one would assume this, but again, we have no facts. Also, had John's baptism been necessary, don't you think Jesus would have been telling people? Of course He would have. This shows that baptism by John was not required. Now what's interesting is that Jesus commands His disciples to go and baptize people in His name (Matthew 28:19). Then after He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, and He ascends into heaven, the first message preached to the early church, by Peter, commands the listeners to be baptized in the name of Jesus. This is what Jesus told Peter He would establish His church with. Then they carry on doing so in the early church. Had it not been necessary, why would they baptize new converts? If baptism is just something to do to follow Jesus' example wouldn't they let those people take a while to decide on this? No, they baptized them right their on the spot. You also don't see anyone scheduling a baptism in the early church, it's done right away. This is probably to avoid said hypothetical situations. I respect you and your beliefs on baptism, but I cannot allow these situations to dictate my beliefs. If there is anything else you would like to know just ask. I explained your situation on my last post, I wasn't sure if you'd read it or not.

rjustice7 · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: Hey

Hey ragman13,

I respect your beliefs. I don't know what Christ told you, but I do know what the Bible tells us. I like the illustration of Niccodemus you used, however Niccodemus asked Christ what he must do to be saved. Christ did not tell him that all he must do is believe. He said he had to be born of the water and of the spirit. So we must determine what Christ meant by water and spirit. Water could mean baptism, or it could mean the physical birth. In John 3:3 Jesus is telling Niccodemus that he has to be born again. Niccodemus says, and I'm paraphrasing, "But Jesus, I can't hop back in my mother's womb and be born again can I?" That's when Jesus says that He must be born of the water and of the spirit. I'm assuming that this second birth is comprised of the water and spirit, and you're assuming that the water is his physical birth, and the spirit his second. We don't know for sure what was meant, because I for one could see it either way. Not a problem though. We must determine what a spiritual birth is, if we say the water is a physical birth. He didn't say, "All you must do is believe Niccodemus." Let's take a look at Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Now most people say, "Well, it said he that believed not would be damned not he that was not baptized." The problem with that is that is says you must believe and be baptized. Ok, then it says if you don't believe you will be damned. If you don't believe in the first place, would you do anything God commanded, or anything biblical? No. And it's not up to baptism alone. You have to apparantly believe and be baptized. Is this scripture irrelevant? I am a firm believer of II Timothy 3:16. I'm sure you're familiar with this passage. So let's have us a little story...

"Hi, I'm Peter, and Jesus just told me that He was going to give me the keys to the kingdom, and on this rock I am going to build His church. I am excited.

Some time later in Jerusalem...

The Crowd: Haha, look those people are drunk!

Peter: Guys, they're not drunk as you suspect, that's the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Random Guy: Man, what do we need to do? I'm pricked in my heart!

Peter: It's simple Random Guy, just repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, all of you guys, because that is what is needed for the remission of your sins, and then you'll receive the Holy Ghost! (This would be the spiritual birth)

Random Guy: Sweet, me first Pete!

Crowd: Us to!

Another Random Guy: While I'm waiting my turn, I want to crowd surf!

Rick: Shut-up man, I'm trying to repent!

Another Random Guy: Sorry Rick!

THE END!

This is what the early church did in the Bible. If you believe that's the first step. Apparantly the crowd believed Peter, but there was more for them to do.

Also, if you say that all you have to do is believe, then I can believe in God right now, and go out and murder someone, but I believe so it's cool, God doesn't mind. So we must assume that believing is a first step, because we can't JUST believe and be saved.

FoC · Goldfish Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 62

Steven3 · Lion King Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 1205 Location: UK

Hello, well "Hey" is a different subject. Shocked

I haven't seen anything on this thread which would justify someone deliberately disobeying one of Christ's most basic instructions, one he submitted to himself, so kudos to those who've simply being saying "the Bible says.."

Additionally John 3:5 is explained, if explanation were needed, in Titus 3:5, which makes it evident that both water and spirit were and are required. It's also evident from the difference between Mosaic baptos = washing and Christian baptisma = washingism, a process including external and internal cleaning and rebirth. Yes it's a symbol, but it's in the nature of symbols to have literal and figurative aspects. Remove the literal (water) and it isn't a symbol, it isn't anything.

God bless
Steven

FoC · Goldfish Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 62

rjustice7 · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: You love arguing don't you?

FoC,

You must love to argue. I will not insult your logic as you have done mine. I respect you for who you are and your view of things. I'm sorry you get so angry about this. I already explained to you about 5-6 times about people who are not able to be baptized and I do not wish to do it again. Just refer to the many times previously I have addressed the issue. I have not contradicted myself, but have kept everything the same and have used scripture to back it up. Maybe you could show me some scripture that backs up what you say, and it would sound more convincing. I won't argue this topic with you anymore because I'm tired of answering the same questions repeatedly. It seems like you forget I have answered the question every time you post. That kind of gets boring after a while. When I said said what I did about scheduling baptisms, it was as a side note. You quoted it but then didn't really say anything about it. I don't know the purpose, I just thought I'd let you know my view on it. Also, not using scripture and focusing only on what you assume of the thief, and hypothetical situations does cause you to develop nonscriptural beliefs. That's why I won't do it. You still haven't explained why it was commanded and practiced so many times if it was unnecessary to salvation. If you decide to post anything else on this matter please answer this question. Tell me why the scriptures support it if it's wrong. Explain Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc... I'm sure that if you're right then the Bible will work in harmony with your theory. Prove to me that it does. If it doesn't then I don't want to hear about it. Thanks and have a blessed day! Very Happy

ragman13 · German Shepherd Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 325

Rjustice you asked if Foc, could use scripture to back up what he believed and I respect that aproach so I have provided some scripture to back up my beliefs and am interested to see what you get from it.
Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize:

SealedEternal · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: Re: Hey

rjustice7 · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: Hey ragman13

ragman 13,

A good post indeed, but you have to look at the context of the scripture. You can't pull a random verse out of nowhere and say it applies to this or that without reading the surrounding scriptures. I looked up I Corinthians 1 so that I may respond properly to you. Ok, Paul is addressing a specific issue. He has heard from some of his brothers of the house of Chloe that some people are saying I follow Paul, or I follow Appollos, and one man said I follow Cephas (Peter). Let's look at verses 12 and 13.

12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

He clearly had baptized some of them in the name of Jesus, and he was basically saying, "Why do you say that you follow me, you were not baptized in my name?" They were proclaiming to be his followers. Only some were declaring themselves to be followers of Christ. Furthermore he said that he was glad he only baptized Crispus and Gaius. What point is there to baptize someone if they think that you are the person they should be followers of and not Christ? He baptized the house of Stephanas, after that he didn't know if he baptized anyone else. This statement he made is clearly an honest statement. Also your entirely right. Paul didn't come to baptize primarily. He came to preach God's message. Baptism is part of that, but it is not the main purpose. That's exactly right. Also you used the scripture where Peter was at Cornelius's household preaching to the gentiles. The Jews were used to being God's people for sometime now, and many Jews that believed in Christ were not so happy about including the gentiles into the plan of salvation. If you read you will find that Peter had 6 Jewish brethren with him. Cornelius had prayed previously asking God for more of Him, and God told him to send for Peter. So Cornelius does so. Peter arrives with his six Jewish brethren and begins speaking to Cornelius. The Holy Ghost fell upon them first, you are correct, but notice what Peter says to his brethren, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" He was saying, "See guys, they're one of us, we can baptize them, it's ok." Would the Jewish brethren have been so willing to have these gentiles baptized had they not been filled first with the Holy Ghost, now they couldn't deny it. If you keep reading, Peter was brought to question by his brethren when he came back on why he baptized gentiles. He had to explain to them, that they had received the Holy Ghost, therefore no one could say, "You weren't supposed to baptize those gentiles!" If baptism wasn't important, why would Peter even bother with the matter? If all you had to do was have the Holy Ghost then hey, they were saved already, why baptize them?

rjustice7 · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:11 am Post subject:

FoC stated...

ragman13 · German Shepherd Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 325

Hello rjustice7 how are you doing. I understand that you have to read scripture in the context of the situation, and I didn't take the verse out of context I simply quoted word for word what was there it speaks for itself. I wrote.

Steven3 · Lion King Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 1205 Location: UK

Hi Ragman