Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[daniel1212]

Your double posting was unnecessary, and the belief that those who do not keep the 7th day Sabbath are damned, not matter how much their lives testify to a living faith that works by love and holiness - making even men like Edwards and Moody worthy of the same fate awaiting men like Joseph Stalin - while only those holy persons in sects which keep the 7th day will be saved, appeals to those who otherwise tend toward cultic exclusivity, which is not limited to the SDA cult.

It is they who are going contrary to the law - which encompasses more than the Torah, which they themselves selectively keep - by adding to the gospel a requirement of faith which is not required under the New Covenant, any more than literally keeping the everlasting covenant of circumcision is, no matter how much its advocates seek to extrapolate it from texts, while spinning others that relegate such liturgical observances to be part of the ceremonial law.

My experience debating such is that they refuse to objectively consider evidence to the contrary, while they are inordinately driven to promote their specious arguments. And whose writing sometimes seems be one long spiel, as your web site is. Thus i need not and will not engage in another round, showing the absence of support for Sabbatarianism under the New Covenat, and its nature, and the evidence to the contrary, but my position can basically be seen here.

[37818]

Well, again nowhere in holy scripture does it make the commanded baptism a requirement of salvation. Saying it does does not make it so. God does the saving (John 1:13) and not by the will of man, which obedience to water baptism [immersion] is of necessity done by the will of man, which rules it out as a means of salvation.

As for the Sabbath, yes, the Sabbath is on the 7th day of the week, our Saturday. But for the saved, Christ is their Sabbath. For those who do not yet have Christ as their Sabbath, Jesus warned regarding the time of trouble, to hope not to have to flee on a Sabbath day. (Matthew 24:20.)

[justsumguy]

So a guy goes to a Pentacostal service. He does everything the sect says he needs to do to be saved and on his way to be baptized, slips and hits his head, causing death.

Is intending to be baptized enough to be saved?
(forehead banging on desktop)

[daniel1212]

So a guy goes to a Pentacostal service. He does everything the sect says he needs to do to be saved and on his way to be baptized, slips and hits his head, causing death.

Is intending to be baptized enough to be saved?
(forehead banging on desktop)

Read thru the posts. Some allow for "baptism by desire," but as key issue what kind of faith saves, the answer being it is one that will confess Jesus is Lord and Savior, and which today typically takes place prior to baptism, but the latter can be the "sinner's prayer" (which itself does not save), in body language.

[justsumguy]

Read thru the posts. Some allow for "baptism by desire," but as key issue what kind of faith saves, the answer being it is one that will confess Jesus is Lord and Savior, and which today typically takes place prior to baptism, but the latter can be the "sinner's prayer" (which itself does not save), in body language.

In this case, I'm not concerned with what "some" allow for. I am simply addressing the official statement as presented...
"Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. "

God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death...
When we submit to water baptism God remits our sin...

My interpretation of the statement is...
God bases the remitting of sin on Christ's atoning death when we submit to water baptism.
So I'm going with once the guy in question submits to water baptism, the guy's sins are remitted...so if the guy dies before he gets to the water...his sins are already remitted.

I'm giving a way out of idiocy.

In my opinion, (I would be a part of "some") all criteria other than Christ doing what Christ did is idiotic (idiotic meaning running around in circles and not being able to know anything and using words such as "belief" and "faith" to circumvent really believing and really having faith (substance and evidence))...knowing.

Baptism to me is a real going from belief to knowing...but I'm justsumguy. One has to believe to take the first step. Once a person truly believes, one can know what it truly means to be "born again". The real death, burial and resurrection that occurs when one truly accepts the fact that Christ is their savior. Belief in Christ took care of it, then understanding that the old man is dead, buried....and yes, resurrected the new man.

In my opinion, baptism is meaningless if one does not understand that they are dead to sin but hey...I'm a heretic and I'm not writing anyone's creed.

[daniel1212]

One has to believe to take the first step. Once a person truly believes, one can know what it truly means to be "born again".

The question is, does one have to make a volitional response in order to be saved? And if so, what is the difference btwn moving some neurons in ones brain, or moving his tongue in a prayer, and moving one's body in baptism? Calvinists have a soul being born again before he exercises faith, though, as was stated, i see this as contrary to Acts 2:38 and maybe Eph. 1:13. On the other extreme, R. Catholicism attributes salvific merit to works of faith.

I presently see that justification is imputed upon conscious heart realization of God-given faith, as a result of God's persuasion, without which no man would come to Christ, and thus it is purely by grace, and while this faith must be of a confessional quality to be salvific, (Rm. 10:9,10), the faith-response itself is not meritorious for salvation, but it is the God-given faith in Christ - not one's works, church or even faith in his faith - which is counted for righteousness.

[37818]

<snip> . . . the faith-response itself is not meritorious for salvation, but it is the God-given faith in Christ - not one's works, church or even faith in his faith - which is counted for righteousness.

That faith being do to truth, by means of God's word (John 17:17, Romans 10:17.). And salvation is wholly of grace through the vehicle of faith in the truth. (Ephesians 2:8, 9, 10.) Since the new birth is wholly the act of God, and not do to the will of man's choosing it. (John 1:12, 13. 1 John 5:4,5, 9-12.)

[justsumguy]

The question is, does one have to make a volitional response in order to be saved? And if so, what is the difference btwn moving some neurons in ones brain, or moving his tongue in a prayer, and moving one's body in baptism? Calvinists have a soul being born again before he exercises faith, though, as was stated, i see this as contrary to Acts 2:38 and maybe Eph. 1:13. On the other extreme, R. Catholicism attributes salvific merit to works of faith.

I presently see that justification is imputed upon conscious heart realization of God-given faith, as a result of God's persuasion, without which no man would come to Christ, and thus it is purely by grace, and while this faith must be of a confessional quality to be salvific, (Rm. 10:9,10), the faith-response itself is not meritorious for salvation, but it is the God-given faith in Christ - not one's works, church or even faith in his faith - which is counted for righteousness.

I think the real question is saved from what? I can only speak to my salvation. I asked Jesus to come into my heart when I was 7. I was sorry for the way I behaved when I was 7. I knew I did things that I should not do and I didn’t even know why I would be so stupid to do some of the things that I did.
I lived with Jesus in my heart until my late teens. I knew I was forgiven, I knew that I still did stupid things and I still didn’t know why I could be so stupid. I also did a lot of good things.
There was a song that I sang that always made perfect sense to me…
Gone, Gone, Gone, Gone!
Yes, my sins are gone.
Now my soul is free, and in my heart's a song;
Buried in the deepest sea;
Yes, that's good enough for me;
I shall live eternally,
Praise God! my sins are GONE!
Everyone has verses they love to argue with and build their belief around. Personally, I choose the ones that support the lyrics to the little song I sang as a child.
I have no use for religion, belief or faith that has no answer. If I’m going to believe in something, I’m going for the best possible belief. I believe in the best possible God. I believe in the best possible savior. I have no use for a second-rate god even if the god has the power to torture me forever. I do not fear a god because it has the power to torture me forever.

I am saved from my sin. Sin has no dominion over me. Satan and the accusatory Christian church can point their fingers at me, every moment of everyday and night and it has no effect on me whatsoever. I am saved from guilt. I am saved from not knowing that I am saved. I am saved from the effects of my accusers who say I cannot know I’m saved.

Most of all, I’m saved from ME being my accuser that says I cannot be in the presence of my perfect eternal creator. The fact that I cannot be with my creator is more real to me than the fact that I breathe. While my “Christian defined sin” certainly provides evidence that I can’t be in God’s presence, it’s nothing compared to the fact that I know I would do something imperfect in Heaven and it wouldn’t take much time in eternity for me to do it. I realize the Christian world likes to think of themselves as making it to the point where they won’t adversely effect Heaven and I applaud their commitment to righteousness but I don’t have that kind of God given talent.

But like I said, I’m saved from me. I have no idea how God through Jesus is going to enable perfect to survive me being a part of it but I fully trust, in spite of everything that is me, that God can really work a real impossible miracle; me not screwing up Heaven. I have accepted the fact that Christ is my savior from me being me.
Everyone can keep on trying to come up with formulas for success and claiming they are the heirs to Heaven but what they say does not apply to me. Their quoting and interpreting scriptures does not apply to me. Christ said He is the way, the truth and the life and I have accepted what Christ said as fact. I have reached out and touched His garment as He walked by, believing it’s all I needed to do and personally, if Christ says it did anything for me…that’s good enough for me. I’ll take a tent back in the mountains for eternity while all the heirs live in mansions…I’d rather live in a tent anyway.

[justsumguy]

double post

[dbaeder]

For all of the discussion regarding John's use of the phrase "baptism eis repentance", Neither "because of" nor "for" are the best rendering. The more literal "into" fits best in regards to John's baptism and the baptism of Acts 2:38. In the case of John's baptism, it was a baptism into a life charachterized by repentance. The same is true of Acts 2:38, it is a baptism into the forgiveness of sins. This is consistent with the New Testament doctrine of baptism. Baptism is into Christ, wherein is the forgiveness of sins. We are clothed with Christ in baptism, wherein is forgiveness, eternal life and every spiritual blessing. Baptism is the cutting away of the sinful nature, through faith in the work of God. Is baptism a work? You better believe it is--it is a work of God. Man may act in baptism, but the only work is that which is done by God.

[dbaeder]

He does everything the sect says he needs to do to be saved and on his way to be baptized, slips and hits his head, causing death.

Is intending to be baptized enough to be saved?

You've got it all wrong. He doesn't slip and hit his head, causing death, he gets hit by a bus on the way to be baptized. Everyone knows that Satan is bus driver on the prowl for souls who want to be baptized. If you're watching television and they guy in the show gets hit by a bus, it's obvious that he was going to be baptized.

Okay, kidding aside. If baptism is essential for (eis) the remission of sins, and the biblical evidence is clearly thatit is, why would we assume that desire was an adequate substitute for obedience? If God knows a person's desires (and again the biblical evidence is clearly that he does), would not the providence of God protect him so that he could be baptized? Would his demise not be evidence that his desire was not sincere?

And if we're going to allow for substitutes, why not allow for the "sinner's prayer", a cerimonial sprinkling, or some stirring of the soul? Why not just accept the fact that there are no substitutes? Who among us has the right to substitute?

[daniel1212]

We have a right and duty to be consistent with Scripture. First, Acts 10 evidences an unsaved household becoming born again before they were baptized, testifying to regeneration occurring at the moment of faith, which moment may be in baptism, or may precede it.

As for baptism of desire (BoD), the story of Abraham in God 22 testifies to God counting a willingness to do something as if it were done even though it was not.

As for presupposition that God would have prevented the death of the soul in the hypothetical story, but the issue is whether God always requires actually acting out something to realize the benefit, which is not true in the aforementioned type of examples. God could have allowed Abraham to carry out His command and then raised Isaac from the dead, but that was what Abraham believed He could do, and his faith was counted it for obedience. Also, after the destruction of the Temple in the O.T., God also did not condemn men of God in later generations because they could not offer the atonement which He commanded them to make by everlasting statute, though God could have enabled it to be kept perpetually, but He redeemed them if they looked toward Christ just like those had to do while the Temple was still standing.

Ultimately there must be a literal obedience, and thus the cross of Christ, and faith without works is dead, but God sees the manner of faith which will respond in manifest obedience, and justifies them, with its works testifying to a complete salvific faith.

[DeiSponsa]

You've got it all wrong. He doesn't slip and hit his head, causing death, he gets hit by a bus on the way to be baptized. Everyone knows that Satan is bus driver on the prowl for souls who want to be baptized. If you're watching television and they guy in the show gets hit by a bus, it's obvious that he was going to be baptized.

Okay, kidding aside. If baptism is essential for (eis) the remission of sins, and the biblical evidence is clearly thatit is, why would we assume that desire was an adequate substitute for obedience? If God knows a person's desires (and again the biblical evidence is clearly that he does), would not the providence of God protect him so that he could be baptized? Would his demise not be evidence that his desire was not sincere?

And if we're going to allow for substitutes, why not allow for the "sinner's prayer", a cerimonial sprinkling, or some stirring of the soul? Why not just accept the fact that there are no substitutes? Who among us has the right to substitute?

I don't really have much to add, but this is something I've questioned a lot. *shrug*

[arrow1]

Quick Question:

Paul is asked, what are you waiting for? be baptized and wash your sins away
The Jailer is immediately baptized
Cornelius is ordered to be baptized
The 3,000 were baptized that day

In fact, in every post-ressurrection conversion, baptism is always immediate, that day if not that very hour.

Reformed and/or Baptist Christians all claim to follow the Bible Alone, yet they all practice the tradition of baptism in water
many days if not many weeks after conversion almost exclusively. Baptism in the Bible in every case without exception follows
conversion immediately.

Therefore would not the claim to follow the Bible alone be false, if one practices the tradition of delayed baptism?

Arrow1

[Pilgrim]

In short, no, baptism is not required for salvation. You can refer to the one million five hundred and ninety two other threads on the subject already started and completed here on Theology Web for further reading. Any other questions?