If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.

[GISMYS_7]

ROFL!!!! Wake up!!! There are most likely more unbelievers baptized than believers!!!
Why no answer to this little question???
Think!! It won't hurt very much!!! Tweak!! Do you say that if an unbeliever gets baptized to please his wife or mother that that baptism saves him==Think some more and face the truth!

 

[Truther]

ROFL!!!! Wake up!!! There are most likely more unbelievers baptized than believers!!!
Why no answer to this little question???
Think!! It won't hurt very much!!! Tweak!! Do you say that if an unbeliever gets baptized to please his wife or mother that that baptism saves him==Think some more and face the truth!

You are debunking Jesus that DID NOT say "he that believeth not and is baptized"...

The "believeth not" folks you are thinking of never entered Jesus' conversation.

He knew that UNBELIEVERS don't get baptized.

This is why he taught the parable of the sower.

 

[GISMYS_7]

You are debunking Jesus that DID NOT say "he that believeth not and is baptized"...

The "believeth not" folks you are thinking of never entered Jesus' conversation.

He knew that UNBELIEVERS don't get baptized.

This is why he taught the parable of the sower.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Try again!! Face truth!!! ROFL!!!! Wake up!!! There are most likely more unbelievers baptized than believers!!!
Why no answer to this little question???
Think!! It won't hurt very much!!! Tweak!! Do you say that if an unbeliever gets baptized to please his wife or mother that that baptism saves him==Think some more and face the truth!

 

[Cristo Rei]

If Baptism could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus.

If faith alone could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus

 

[Cristo Rei]

Im just think out loud here but maybe its not even up to us if we get saved...
Maybe none of it matters cos Jesus came and did what He did... We are chosen, predestined, right...
That could be why we were baptized, have faith and try to follow Christ. They could be the result of being chosen

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, the baptism of Acts is specifically in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of the 3000's sins.

John did not say "in the name of Jesus Christ', therefore there was no remission of sins.

This is why the disciples of John had to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins(after pentecost) per Acts 19.

John did not have the power to remit sins, though he only preached remission of sins before the death of Christ.

Hi @Truther;

What do you make of Mark 1:4?

LiC,

@justbyfaith.

 

[justbyfaith]

Im just think out loud here but maybe its not even up to us if we get saved...
Maybe none of it matters cos Jesus came and did what He did... We are chosen, predestined, right...
That could be why we were baptized, have faith and try to follow Christ. They could be the result of being chosen

Yes...see Romans 8:30 (and compare to Acts of the Apostles 2:39).

 

[Cristo Rei]

Yes...see Romans 8:30 (and compare to Acts of the Apostles 2:39).

That's an interesting verse from Acts... I've never recalled it... Peter is telling them to repent, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

It supports the view that we don't need to do anything to be saved...

 

[justbyfaith]

That's an interesting verse from Acts... I've never recalled it... Peter is telling them to repent, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

It supports the view that we don't need to do anything to be saved...

Except that Acts 2:39 is speaking of a conditional promise...found in Acts 2:38.

 

[Cristo Rei]

Except that Acts 2:39 is speaking of a conditional promise...found in Acts 2:38.

Receiving the Holy Spirit...

 

[justbyfaith]

Receiving the Holy Spirit...

...through baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins.

 

[Cristo Rei]

...through baptism in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins.

Ye, i did say something along those lines in post #149

 

[mailmandan]

Yes, the baptism of Acts is specifically in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of the 3000's sins.

John did not say "in the name of Jesus Christ', therefore there was no remission of sins.

This is why the disciples of John had to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins (after pentecost) per Acts 19.

John did not have the power to remit sins, though he only preached remission of sins before the death of Christ.

False. In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

John clearly said "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) Peter said "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." So you are saying that "for the remission of sins" only saves when you attach "in the name of Jesus Christ" to it? Whatever baptism is "for" in Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3 it's also for in Acts 2:38. In both cases baptism is “in regards to/on the basis of” the remission of sins received upon repentance and not in order to obtain the remission of sins. In Matthew 3:11, they were baptized with water for (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance and not in order to obtain repentance. You doctrine is inconsistent.

The reason why these disciples of John were re-baptized after Pentecost was because when Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and is the exception, not the rule).

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It doesn’t have to be a hard line.

All faithful believers get baptized. It’s not an option to not get baptized (or not get circumcised in the case of Abraham). The book of Acts is abundantly clear in this matter.

I was baptized.

by God himself the moment of my salvation

a year later, I was able to be baptized in water,

if I did not survive foe that year so I could be baptized, I still would have been saved,

 

[mailmandan]

Unbelievers don't get baptized.

There are plenty of unbelievers who have been water baptized, especially those who attend various false religions and cults that merely "claim" to be Christian. Now such people may believe "mental assent" in the existence and in historical facts about Jesus, including that His death, burial and resurrection "happened," yet such people fail to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 1:16) These "nominal" Christians trust in works for salvation (and not in Christ alone) and fall short of saving belief.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Baptism became the way God gave us for salvation after the thief on the cross.
It was after the cross, after Jesus rose again, that Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
Do you believe Jesus?


The verse in Peter very clearly says that baptism does save us.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (KJV)
Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you (RSV)
baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you (NRSV)
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.(NAB)
And this water symbolises baptism that now saves you (NIV)
also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism (YLT)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism (ASV)
Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you (GWT)
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (NKJV)
That was a type of the baptism that now saves you (CCB)
Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also (ISVNT)

The rest of 1Pet 3:21 explains in what way baptism saves us. To deny that baptism saves us is a clear denial of scripture.


Baptism the the normative way of salvation that God has given us. It is the way he he has told us. Refusal of baptism is disobedience and disbelief.
However God is loving and merciful. We believe he can, and does, provide salvation for those in the circumstances you suggest. Another example would be someone who dies crossing to road while on his way to be baptised. But those are exceptions that God makes, not us.
We do it God's way not our way.

Baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision

1, they both represent being cleansed
2. They both were a command by God
3. They both were seen as initiation rites

yet neither of them were a means of salvation, they were symbols to proclaim a spiritual truth of the true cleansing act (call it circumcision or baptism) which is performed by God,

col 2 tells us it is not the things done by the hands of men but the thing done by the hand of god, the spiritual circumcision which is the baptism which is performed by God himself,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No I am not joking.
Can you give proper references not whole chapters.

I repeat again, nowhere does Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, claim that we are saved by faith alone.

Well Excuse me if you are unable to study thenword and the passage I gave to prove my point

I gave Eph 1 and 2 because the whole chapters are paul proclaiming we were given everything by God based on hearing the word and then trusting Thenword we heard in faith and later concludes it is by grace through faith not work. (Both claim faith alone)

in titus, Paul said it is not by works of righteousness which we have done (these would be good deeds, which would include water baptism, going to church giving to the church, doing any command God has given to us) but by gods mercy.. this is purely faith alone, mercy is not something that can be earned, it is given to the poor and needy because they can’t earn it themselves.

we have multiple places where paul say we are justified by faith and faith alone.

so take back your attitude, and try to study, if studying is to hard for you, then I will allow you to continue to listen to men

 

[mailmandan]

If faith alone could save then there is no need for the shed Blood of Jesus

Nobody is saying that we are saved by faith alone in that sense, apart from the shed blood of Jesus. Salvation through faith in Christ alone means that we are saved the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation "apart from works." (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 etc..). God's grace and the shed blood of Jesus is not excluded. People make this so complicated.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Acts 2:38 is the rope.

Grab it.

The rope?

repent is the rope?

Because acts 2:38 Says to repent and you will be given the gift of the spirit,

repenting would be like a drowning person who tells the rescuer no, he does not want to be rescued, he loves where he is, he does not see his danger, and will continue to flounder until he dies, who changes his mind, because he sees he is hopeless and says yes, please rescue me, and allows the rescuer to PULL him out of the water to safety,

baptism would occur after, it would be like the man saying go and wash yourself and tell thenworld what happened here today so if they can Realize they are drowning tool and possibly by your testimony they will say yes also.