Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

BreadOfLife said:

WRONG.

That’s NOT what Rom. 5:14 says.
It says that they did not sin LIKE Adam did. They did not defy a command from God like Adam did:

New International Version
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

New Living Translation
Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

English Standard Version
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Berean Study Bible
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.

New American Standard Bible
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

King James Bible
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Christian Standard Bible
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a type of the Coming One.

Contemporary English Version
Yet death still had power over all who lived from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. This happened, though not everyone disobeyed a direct command from God, as Adam did. In some ways Adam is like Christ who came later.

Good News Translation
But from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, death ruled over all human beings, even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam did when he disobeyed God's command. Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.

International Standard Version
Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

NET Bible
Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

New Heart English Bible
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren't like Adam's disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.

American Standard Version
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

English Revised Version
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

This ABSOLUTELY teaches Original Sin because it differentiates between our OWN personal sins and the stain we inherited from Adam’s sin.

Click to expand...

---Romans 5:14 does not even mention original sin, you assume that idea into the verse.

---If original sin were true, then everyone would inherit the same exact sin from Adam at birth. There would be no need for any contrast among sins if all inherit the same sin. The contrast of sins is between the sin Adam committed in the garden and the sins of those that lived between Adam and Moses who transgressed different laws of God than Adam did in the garden. Hence men are sinners for choosing to sin not by unconditionally passively inheriting sin from Adam. We follow in the path of Adam: Adam was not created a sinner but was not a sinner until after he transgressed God's law in the garden. We today are not created/born sinners but are not sinners until accountable adults transgress God's NT law.



Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Romans 7:8-9 "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Facts about sin that can be learned from the above three passages:

---law must exist for sin to exist. If there were no law then sin would not be credited to man, Rom 5:13.

--not only must law exist for sin to exist, that law must be also transgressed according to John.

--sin is dead, powerless if there was no law, sin cannot do anything if no law existed. Paul then points out he was once alive without law. This means there was a time in Paul's life when he was without law and being without law means sin had no power over Paul, sin was dead to Paul. Yet when Paul matured mentally learning the law, learning right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16; Deuteronomy 1:39) THEN sin sprang up in him and he then died spiritually. Hence sin was not in him at birth but later in his life...he went from being ALIVE without law to being DEAD when he matured and being accountable to God's commands.


If original sin were true, then Paul would have been born dead. Yet Paul says he was ALIVE without law.

Infants are not under law, sin is dead to them, it has no power over them. They are born ALIVE as Paul but later in life when the law of God comes to them THEN they spiritually die.

For an infant to be born a sinner, then he/she must be....

(1) born under law (yet Paul was born ALIVE without law and NOT born dead under law)
(2) born already accountable to that law (yet Paul said sin was dead to him, had no power over him so sin could not cause him to die spiritually)
(3) have transgressed that law. (yet infants are not capable of sinning, not capable of lying, stealing, adultery, etc)

.....making the man made idea of original sin Biblically impossible. Sin is not an idea that is passed from one person to another. There is no sin gene that is passed from parents to children. Sin is not matter as virus, bacteria that is passed from one to another. Yet sin exists and can only exist when there is law and that law is transgressed by an accountable person.

BreadOfLife said:

Nonsense.

First of all – YOU are just as responsible for presenting evidence that the Thief WAS Baptized if you are going to demand proof that he WASN’T.

Secondly – your claim that he wasn’t an example of NT Gospel salvation is rubbish. He was saved because of His faith and obedience in Jesus Christ – NOT because of his adherence to the OT Law.

Finally – I reiterate what I have posted several times already:
That God will have mercy ono WHOMEVER He wishes – and not who YOU think he should (Exod. 33:19, John 21:22, Rom. 9:15).

Click to expand...

First, I am not the one using the thief as proof that water baptism is necessary or unnecessary. Yet you are trying to use the thief as proof that water baptism is not necessary therefore putting the burden of proof upon you to prove he had never been water baptized.

Secondly Hebrews 9:15-17 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."
Christ is the Testator of the NT. Clearly the Bible says a testament is of force AFTER men are dead otherwise the testament is of no strength while the testator liveth. Christ was still alive when He promised the thief he would be in paradise meaning the NT was not yet in force. My last will and testament is not in force now while I am alive but will only be in force at some point (after a period of probation maybe) after I die. Christ's NT did not take effect immediately when He died. Luke 24:47 shows that the great commission NT teaching of repentance and remission of sins in His name would not begin until the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2) which was some weeks after Christ died.

Lastly, no verse says God will willy-nilly have mercy upon anyone for some unknown, baseless, capricious reason. The Bible shows in many places those who conditionally obey God's will are the ones who receive mercy. God's word on this has not, will not change. Romans 5:1 says those who conditionally have faith will be justified. Will God change this and justify and save the faithless? No, for how can man depend on, rely on what changes? Yet God's word does not change, (Isaiah 40:8) it is settled (Psalms 119:89).

Is water baptism necessary for salvation...NO!

If it were then hundreds , probably thousands over time died unsaved.

If water baptism is necessary, the thief on the cross is always mentioned ....yet what about all those who don't have access to water baptism on our deathbed? Many are saved 'at the end'.

We've even seen in many movies how priests pray with people on their death beds and on the battle fields , who confess that they don't want to die without God.
So, are some of you saying that without water baptism people cannot be saved?
Garbage.

Ernest T. Bass said:

---Romans 5:14 does not even mention original sin, you assume that idea into the verse.

---If original sin were true, then everyone would inherit the same exact sin from Adam at birth. There would be no need for any contrast among sins if all inherit the same sin. The contrast of sins is between the sin Adam committed in the garden and the sins of those that lived between Adam and Moses who transgressed different laws of God than Adam did in the garden. Hence men are sinners for choosing to sin not by unconditionally passively inheriting sin from Adam. We follow in the path of Adam: Adam was not created a sinner but was not a sinner until after he transgressed God's law in the garden. We today are not created/born sinners but are not sinners until accountable adults transgress God's NT law.

Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Romans 7:8-9 "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Facts about sin that can be learned from the above three passages:

---law must exist for sin to exist. If there were no law then sin would not be credited to man, Rom 5:13.

--not only must law exist for sin to exist, that law must be also transgressed according to John.

--sin is dead, powerless if there was no law, sin cannot do anything if no law existed. Paul then points out he was once alive without law. This means there was a time in Paul's life when he was without law and being without law means sin had no power over Paul, sin was dead to Paul. Yet when Paul matured mentally learning the law, learning right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16; Deuteronomy 1:39) THEN sin sprang up in him and he then died spiritually. Hence sin was not in him at birth but later in his life...he went from being ALIVE without law to being DEAD when he matured and being accountable to God's commands.

If original sin were true, then Paul would have been born dead. Yet Paul says he was ALIVE without law.

Infants are not under law, sin is dead to them, it has no power over them. They are born ALIVE as Paul but later in life when the law of God comes to them THEN they spiritually die.

For an infant to be born a sinner, then he/she must be....

(1) born under law (yet Paul was born ALIVE without law and NOT born dead under law)
(2) born already accountable to that law (yet Paul said sin was dead to him, had no power over him so sin could not cause him to die spiritually)
(3) have transgressed that law. (yet infants are not capable of sinning, not capable of lying, stealing, adultery, etc)

.....making the man made idea of original sin Biblically impossible. Sin is not an idea that is passed from one person to another. There is no sin gene that is passed from parents to children. Sin is not matter as virus, bacteria that is passed from one to another. Yet sin exists and can only exist when there is law and that law is transgressed by an accountable person.

Click to expand...

WEAK.

Of course there is no mention of “Original Sin” in Rom. 5:14 because that terminology wasn’t used until centuries later. The TEACHING is there, however.
You won’t find the word, “Trinity” in Scripture because that terminology came centuries later. The TEACHING is there, however.

Your point that there would be no need to contrast other sins is nonsense. The people spoken of here that lives between Adam and Moses sinned on theor OWN. However, they were ALSO stained with the guilt of Adam’s original offense against God. THIS is where we get the proclivity toward sin (concupiscence).

Original sin doesn't mean that we all committed the exact same sin as Adam.

Helen said:

Is water baptism necessary for salvation...NO!

Click to expand...

Yes, water baptism is necessary, Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19-20; John 3:5; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Cor 1:12-13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5....

Helen said:

If it were then hundreds , probably thousands over time died unsaved.

Click to expand...

"... for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" Mt 7:13

Helen said:

If water baptism is necessary, the thief on the cross is always mentioned

Click to expand...

The thief is a failed attempt to get around the necessity of water baptism. Sometimes the publican (Luke 18:13-14) is used to get around the necessity of water baptism. Yet the publican, as the thief, lived before the NT gospel came into effect, (Hebrews 9:15-17) therefore NOT examples of NT gospel salvation. The publican and Pharisees were Jews who had gone to Temple to pray. Under the OT law they lived, physical birth put a Jew in a covenant relationship with God. But for us today under the NT gospel, it requires a spiritual birth (John 3:3-5) for one to be in a NT covenant relationship with God and saved. This spirit birth takes place in water baptism, John 3:5 cf Ephesians 2;26; Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Helen said:

....yet what about all those who don't have access to water baptism on our deathbed? Many are saved 'at the end'.

We've even seen in many movies how priests pray with people on their death beds and on the battle fields , who confess that they don't want to die without God.
So, are some of you saying that without water baptism people cannot be saved?
Garbage.

Click to expand...

The NT gospel does not teach deathbed salvation. That is another invention of man.

Ernest T. Bass said:

First, I am not the one using the thief as proof that water baptism is necessary or unnecessary. Yet you are trying to use the thief as proof that water baptism is not necessary therefore putting the burden of proof upon you to prove he had never been water baptized.

Secondly Hebrews 9:15-17 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."
Christ is the Testator of the NT. Clearly the Bible says a testament is of force AFTER men are dead otherwise the testament is of no strength while the testator liveth. Christ was still alive when He promised the thief he would be in paradise meaning the NT was not yet in force. My last will and testament is not in force now while I am alive but will only be in force at some point (after a period of probation maybe) after I die. Christ's NT did not take effect immediately when He died. Luke 24:47 shows that the great commission NT teaching of repentance and remission of sins in His name would not begin until the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2) which was some weeks after Christ died.

Lastly, no verse says God will willy-nilly have mercy upon anyone for some unknown, baseless, capricious reason. The Bible shows in many places those who conditionally obey God's will are the ones who receive mercy. God's word on this has not, will not change. Romans 5:1 says those who conditionally have faith will be justified. Will God change this and justify and save the faithless? No, for how can man depend on, rely on what changes? Yet God's word does not change, (Isaiah 40:8) it is settled (Psalms 119:89).

Click to expand...

This is a lie.

I never said that Water Baptism wasn’t necessary. My position ALL along is that it IS necessary for salvation.

The Thief on the cross is an example of the EXCEPTION. YIOU have made the gross error of basing your doctrine on the exception – and that is your folly. Aborted babies are another exception. NEVER base your doctrines on the exception. People who have NEVER been exposed to the truth of the Gospel are another exception (John 9:41).

The Thief repented but was UNABLE to be Baptized due to circumstances beyond his control. God will have mercy on whom HE will have mercy, and compassion on whom HE will have compassion.

He is NOT bound by YOUR rules.

BreadOfLife said:

WEAK.

Of course there is no mention of “Original Sin” in Rom. 5:14 because that terminology wasn’t used until centuries later. The TEACHING is there, however.
You won’t find the word, “Trinity” in Scripture because that terminology came centuries later. The TEACHING is there, however.

Your point that there would be no need to contrast other sins is nonsense. The people spoken of here that lives between Adam and Moses sinned on theor OWN. However, they were ALSO stained with the guilt of Adam’s original offense against God. THIS is where we get the proclivity toward sin (concupiscence).

Original sin doesn't mean that we all committed the exact same sin as Adam.

Click to expand...

Original sin nor the idea of original sin is not found at all in the first 5 chapters or Romans. Those that lived between Adam and Moses sinned sins unlike the sin Adam sinned and therefore held accountable (death) for their OWn sinning and not Adam's sin. You ADDED the idea to the text they were "also stained with the guilt of Adam's sin".

Again, in the first 3 chapters or Romans Paul proves all (Gentile and Jew) have sinned. Why is it the idea of original sin CANNOT be found in these 3 chapters as to why Gentile and Jew have sinned? Why the need for Paul to quote OT verse after OT verse to prove that Gentiles and Jews have sinned due to TRANSGRESSIONS they committed and not to how they were passively born? There would not be a better place for the idea of original sin to be mentioned than in the first 3 chapters or Romans where "all have sinned" yet that idea is not even remotely mentioned at all!!! Never entered Paul's mind at all!!!

BreadOfLife said:

This is a lie.

I never said that Water Baptism wasn’t necessary. My position ALL along is that it IS necessary for salvation.

The Thief on the cross is an example of the EXCEPTION. YIOU have made the gross error of basing your doctrine on the exception – and that is your folly. Aborted babies are another exception. NEVER base your doctrines on the exception. People who have NEVER been exposed to the truth of the Gospel are another exception (John 9:41).

The Thief repented but was UNABLE to be Baptized due to circumstances beyond his control. God will have mercy on whom HE will have mercy, and compassion on whom HE will have compassion.

He is NOT bound by YOUR rules.

Click to expand...

You try and prove that baptism is not necessary by using the thief as an "EXCEPTION". If there can be one exception then why can't there be billions of exception to the necessity of water baptism? If billions can be saved UNbaptized then how can it be argued that baptism is really necessary? It can't. If billions can be saved unbaptized then unbaptism becomes the rule and baptism the exception.

Water baptism is either necessary or it is not, it cannot be at the same time both necessary and not necessary. The Bible makes it necessary so there can be NO exceptions. The Bible does not command, require water baptism but then makes exceptions. Men try to create the exceptions. No reason or sense to command require water baptism then make exceptions for exceptions remove the command, requirement.

Your bias against the necessity of water baptism is clearly showing. YOU want exceptions for water baptism, but I have yet see you argue exceptions for belief or repentance. Will you also argue God will make exceptions and save the faithless anyway? Will God make exceptions and save impenitent sinners not having had their sin washed away by the blood of Christ?

YOU are creating the exceptions, not God. God is not bound by your exceptions.

Ernest T. Bass said:

Original sin nor the idea of original sin is not found at all in the first 5 chapters or Romans. Those that lived between Adam and Moses sinned sins unlike the sin Adam sinned and therefore held accountable (death) for their OWn sinning and not Adam's sin. You ADDED the idea to the text they were "also stained with the guilt of Adam's sin".

Again, in the first 3 chapters or Romans Paul proves all (Gentile and Jew) have sinned. Why is it the idea of original sin CANNOT be found in these 3 chapters as to why Gentile and Jew have sinned? Why the need for Paul to quote OT verse after OT verse to prove that Gentiles and Jews have sinned due to TRANSGRESSIONS they committed and not to how they were passively born? There would not be a better place for the idea of original sin to be mentioned than in the first 3 chapters or Romans where "all have sinned" yet that idea is not even remotely mentioned at all!!! Never entered Paul's mind at all!!!

Click to expand...

You are dead wrong:

Rom. 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

EVERYBODY is guilty of sin – even if they did NOT sin on their own.
This is the TEXTBOOK definition of Original Sin.


EVERYBODY is guilty of sin – even if they did NOT sin on their own.
This is the TEXTBOOK definition of Original Sin.

Ernest T. Bass said:

You try and prove that baptism is not necessary by using the thief as an "EXCEPTION". If there can be one exception then why can't there be billions of exception to the necessity of water baptism? If billions can be saved UNbaptized then how can it be argued that baptism is really necessary? It can't. If billions can be saved unbaptized then unbaptism becomes the rule and baptism the exception.

Water baptism is either necessary or it is not, it cannot be at the same time both necessary and not necessary. The Bible makes it necessary so there can be NO exceptions. The Bible does not command, require water baptism but then makes exceptions. Men try to create the exceptions. No reason or sense to command require water baptism then make exceptions for exceptions remove the command, requirement.

Your bias against the necessity of water baptism is clearly showing. YOU want exceptions for water baptism, but I have yet see you argue exceptions for belief or repentance. Will you also argue God will make exceptions and save the faithless anyway? Will God make exceptions and save impenitent sinners not having had their sin washed away by the blood of Christ?

YOU are creating the exceptions, not God. God is not bound by your exceptions.

Click to expand...

I'm not "binding" God by realizing that He makes exceptions.
God makes exceptions.

Those who do not accept Christ are ultimately condemned. HOWEVER, Jesus makes an exception for those who are invincibly ignorant (John 9:41).

Once again - Water Baptism is the NORMATIVE MEANS of salvation. We read this in John 3:5. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc. HOWEVER, there are situations when a person simply cannot be baptized – even when they WANT to. The Thief is one such example.

YOU are making the fatal error of formulating doctrines based on the exceptions.

Ernest T. Bass said:

Yes, water baptism is necessary, Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19-20; John 3:5; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Cor 1:12-13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5....



"... for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" Mt 7:13


The thief is a failed attempt to get around the necessity of water baptism. Sometimes the publican (Luke 18:13-14) is used to get around the necessity of water baptism. Yet the publican, as the thief, lived before the NT gospel came into effect, (Hebrews 9:15-17) therefore NOT examples of NT gospel salvation. The publican and Pharisees were Jews who had gone to Temple to pray. Under the OT law they lived, physical birth put a Jew in a covenant relationship with God. But for us today under the NT gospel, it requires a spiritual birth (John 3:3-5) for one to be in a NT covenant relationship with God and saved. This spirit birth takes place in water baptism, John 3:5 cf Ephesians 2;26; Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 12:13.



The NT gospel does not teach deathbed salvation. That is another invention of man.

Click to expand...

Garbage...
So you are saying that every deathbed conversion and every battle field conversion , they all went to hell.

What ignorant dolt taught you that?

Nancy said:

Totally agree here Chris, I see water baptism confession with our words.

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved". Romans 10:9

This is actually what happens with water baptism...a confession among others of our new faith in Christ.
xo

Click to expand...

amen

Helen said:

What ignorant dolt taught you that?

Click to expand...

you may not want the answer

Helen said:

Garbage...
So you are saying that every deathbed conversion and every battle field conversion , they all went to hell.

What ignorant dolt taught you that?

Click to expand...

Yup.
The Thief on the cross is a classic case of a "deathbed" conversion.

Helen said:

Garbage...
So you are saying that every deathbed conversion and every battle field conversion , they all went to hell.

What ignorant dolt taught you that?

Click to expand...

Deathbed conversion is an invention of man to push the false 'faith only' teaching. Nowhere does the NT gospel teach deathbed conversion.

Where was the deathbed salvation for those in Proverbs 1:22-33? Those who reject God up to the point of death will not find God, God will not hear them.

Ernest T. Bass said:

Deathbed conversion is an invention of man to push the false 'faith only' teaching. Nowhere does the NT gospel teach deathbed conversion.

Where was the deathbed salvation for those in Proverbs 1:22-33? Those who reject God up to the point of death will not find God, God will not hear them.

Click to expand...

What world do you live in? I live in THIS world...and I have seen it with my own eyes...more than once..

You have a very tiny legalistic mind!! God is bigger than your little boxed up God!!!!

Helen said:

What world do you live in? I live in THIS world...and I have seen it with my own eyes...more than once..

You have a very tiny legalistic mind!! God is bigger than your little boxed up God!!!!

Click to expand...

Amen Helen!!
God is so gracious that He allows us His salvation until our last breath!

BreadOfLife said:

I'm not "binding" God by realizing that He makes exceptions.
God makes exceptions.

Those who do not accept Christ are ultimately condemned. HOWEVER, Jesus makes an exception for those who are invincibly ignorant (John 9:41).

Once again - Water Baptism is the NORMATIVE MEANS of salvation. We read this in John 3:5. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc. HOWEVER, there are situations when a person simply cannot be baptized – even when they WANT to. The Thief is one such example.

YOU are making the fatal error of formulating doctrines based on the exceptions.

Click to expand...

YOU are creating exceptions when NO EXCEPTIONS exist.

Those that do not believe will be lost, (John 3:16) no exceptions.
Those who do not repent will be lost, (Luke 13:3) no exceptions.
Those that will not confess Christ (Matthew 10:32-33) no exceptions.
Those not baptized will be condemned (Mark 16:16) no exceptions.

Baptism has been COMMANDED so it therefore cannot be any exceptions, no "normative means".


Again, YOU continue to make exceptions when God has made NONE.

The 'thief argument' has been debunked ad nauseum times. He is not an example of NT gospel salvation nor have you proven he was never baptized.


John 9:41 says NOTHING about exceptions being made.

Jn 9:39 there were those who were blind and realized they were blind but they sought to be saved (verse 36). There were those as the Pharisees who were blind but thought they could see and content to live in that blindness (verse 34).

Verse 41 the Pharisees arrogantly ask Jesus if they were blind. Again, they did not think they were spiritually blind (John 9:29). Jesus says to them " If ye were blind,(if they admitted their spiritual blindness) ye should have no sin: (they would have been saved) but now ye say, We see; (they claimed they could see spiritually) therefore your sin remaineth (they remain lost)."

Ernest T. Bass said:

YOU are creating exceptions when NO EXCEPTIONS exist.

Those that do not believe will be lost, (John 3:16) no exceptions.
Those who do not repent will be lost, (Luke 13:3) no exceptions.
Those that will not confess Christ (Matthew 10:32-33) no exceptions.
Those not baptized will be condemned (Mark 16:16) no exceptions.

Baptism has been COMMANDED so it therefore cannot be any exceptions, no "normative means".


Again, YOU continue to make exceptions when God has made NONE.

The 'thief argument' has been debunked ad nauseum times. He is not an example of NT gospel salvation nor have you proven he was never baptized.


John 9:41 says NOTHING about exceptions being made.

Jn 9:39 there were those who were blind and realized they were blind but they sought to be saved (verse 36). There were those as the Pharisees who were blind but thought they could see and content to live in that blindness (verse 34).

Verse 41 the Pharisees arrogantly ask Jesus if they were blind. Again, they did not think they were spiritually blind (John 9:29). Jesus says to them " If ye were blind,(if they admitted their spiritual blindness) ye should have no sin: (they would have been saved) but now ye say, We see; (they claimed they could see spiritually) therefore your sin remaineth (they remain lost)."

Click to expand...

Something is missing from your life brother ...The Grace and the Love of
Father God!!!!
You need a true vision of HIM.

Ernest T. Bass said:

YOU are creating exceptions when NO EXCEPTIONS exist.

Those that do not believe will be lost, (John 3:16) no exceptions.
Those who do not repent will be lost, (Luke 13:3) no exceptions.
Those that will not confess Christ (Matthew 10:32-33) no exceptions.
Those not baptized will be condemned (Mark 16:16) no exceptions.

Baptism has been COMMANDED so it therefore cannot be any exceptions, no "normative means".

Again, YOU continue to make exceptions when God has made NONE.

The 'thief argument' has been debunked ad nauseum times. He is not an example of NT gospel salvation nor have you proven he was never baptized.

John 9:41 says NOTHING about exceptions being made.

Jn 9:39 there were those who were blind and realized they were blind but they sought to be saved (verse 36). There were those as the Pharisees who were blind but thought they could see and content to live in that blindness (verse 34).

Verse 41 the Pharisees arrogantly ask Jesus if they were blind. Again, they did not think they were spiritually blind (John 9:29). Jesus says to them " If ye were blind,(if they admitted their spiritual blindness) ye should have no sin: (they would have been saved) but now ye say, We see; (they claimed they could see spiritually) therefore your sin remaineth (they remain lost)."

Click to expand...

WRONG.

NONE of the verses you presented say a THING about there being "no exceptions".
I can give you MILLIONS of exceptions right now - Aborted babies. Is it your belief that they all burn in Hell because they weren't baptized??
Do you believe that those born with severe mental retardation and do not have full use of their faculties will suffer in Hell because they weren't baptized??

Once again - you are placing YOUR parameters and limitations on God's mercy where Scripture doesn't.

Finally - as to John 9:41 - it ABSOLUTELY makes an exception for the spiritually blind (ignorant).
If the pharisees admitted that they were spiritually blind - HOW would this save then if it were NOT an exception??