Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation ?

[Dodo_David]

Romans 10:9-10 (ESV): "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

No mention of baptism in those verses.

 

[FHII]

Mar 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mat 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:



What I don't see in these verses is a notion that we must be baptized in literal water. Can you show me where it says in these verses that we must be baptized in literal water? I mean, Mat 28:19 says to baptize in a NAME, not a body of water. I guess you can say Jesus is "that" water, but he was not literal water. He wasn't literally the Jordan river or that tub of water in your church. That's representative, isn't it?

AND, I gotta add that Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter in Acts 2 said to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Did Peter slight the Holy Ghost and the Father? (that's a question for you trinitarians out there... And the answer is "no" because the name of the entire family is.... Jesus Christ).

AND, I gotta add something else. Water baptism is for the remission of sins, right? Why did Jesus get baptized then? Did he have sins that needed to be remissed?

There are a lot of other questions that could be asked.... For example, why did Paul not do it except for a few people? Another example is John the Baptist saying he did Baptize with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. So how come we don't see churches baptizing with fire? I mean the water is literal... Why not with literal fire? The answer is obvious, isn't it?

The fire that Jesus baptizes with isn't literal and neither is the water. By the way.... I don't recall Jesus ever baptizing people in a literal body of water.... Just saying....

 

[Dodo_David]

In Acts 16, the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved.
Paul and Silas replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (v. 31)

No mention of baptism being necessary for salvation.

 

[Webers_Home]

Jn 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is
passed from death unto life."

Note that having everlasting life and not coming into condemnation is CONDITIONAL
upon ones CONTINUED hearing and believing (both verbs are present tense). One
hears and believes by choice, so one can quit hearing and believing by choice. Other
than Charles Stanley, who will argue one can quit hearing and believing and yet still be
saved in is unbelief?
So as long as one conditionally hears and believes he will never fall into condemnation.

According to 1John 3:9, the Spirit birth, about which Christ spoke at John
3:3-8, makes it impossible for truly born-again Christians to discontinue
hearing the Lord's word and/or believing in the God who sent him.

Haven't you ever wondered why the Lord testified that the Spirit birth is a
must rather than an option? Well; I should think that the answer to that is
obvious: it's to ensure that the Lord's sheep never, ever commit apostasy.
They might commit a lot of other things; but not that-- the reason being that
God's seed remains in Spirit-born Christians. What's the odds of God
committing apostasy? Zero. Well then the odds of His seed committing
apostasy are zero too.

Bottom line is: In order to be assured of enduring to the end, it is essential
that interested parties get themselves Spirit-born as per John 3:3-8 because
sans that birth, water baptism is about as effective as sacrificing a stray cat
to the Devil.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

When I've encountered those who state that without water baptism we are not really saved, they have also stipulated that it must be a baptism by full immersion; no other means is said to be acceptable to God. They also have said that full immersion was necessary in order to truly cleanse us of our sins.

However, water cannot cleanse us of our sins, and never could. God demands that our sins be cleansed with blood:

Hi,

John said Christ "washed us from our sins in his own blood" Rev 1:5

Christ's blood that washes away sins was shed in His death, Jn 19:34

So a man must have access into the death of Christ where that shed blood is so it can wash away sins

By no coincidence it is water baptism that puts a man into Christ's death Rom 6:3-5

So it's not the water that washes away sins but the blood of Christ but the blood of Christ washes away sins at the point of water baptism.


Baptizo means an immersion, to submerge, an overwhelming...."And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Romans 10:9-10 (ESV): "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

No mention of baptism in those verses.

But these two verses do not come close to exhausting all salvic verses.

These two verses do not mention grace or the blood of Christ, so grace and the blood of Christ are not necessary to being saved?

Paul did not shun to declare ALL the counsel of God, Acts 20:27 so we have to examine all NT salvic verses.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved.
Paul and Silas replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (v. 31)

No mention of baptism being necessary for salvation.

Paul did not tell the jailer to believe only in the Lord. At this point in v31 Paul had not even yet told the jailer what to believe, this happens in v32.

Acts 16:34 "And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God."

In this verse, the participle phrase 'having believed in God' sums up all the jailer had just done which includes repentance as seen by washing their stripes and being baptized.


The word 'believe' as used in the NT can and is sometimes used as a synecdoche where believe includes baptism, for example:

Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

Acts 2:44 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common;"


The ones that received Peters words were baptized, conversely those that rejected his gospel words rejected being baptized.

So who were the ones in v44 said to have 'believed'? The ones that accepted Peter's words and were baptized or the ones that rejected his words and rejected baptism? Obviously the ones that are said to have believed in v44 are the ones that were baptized in v41 so we have believed in 44 include being baptized.

The implication of Luke's language in the context of Acts 2:41 is that one has not gladly received the gospel until he has been baptized, that is, receiving the gospel means being baptized.

Mar 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mat 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:



What I don't see in these verses is a notion that we must be baptized in literal water. Can you show me where it says in these verses that we must be baptized in literal water? I mean, Mat 28:19 says to baptize in a NAME, not a body of water. I guess you can say Jesus is "that" water, but he was not literal water. He wasn't literally the Jordan river or that tub of water in your church. That's representative, isn't it?

AND, I gotta add that Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter in Acts 2 said to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Did Peter slight the Holy Ghost and the Father? (that's a question for you trinitarians out there... And the answer is "no" because the name of the entire family is.... Jesus Christ).

AND, I gotta add something else. Water baptism is for the remission of sins, right? Why did Jesus get baptized then? Did he have sins that needed to be remissed?

There are a lot of other questions that could be asked.... For example, why did Paul not do it except for a few people? Another example is John the Baptist saying he did Baptize with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. So how come we don't see churches baptizing with fire? I mean the water is literal... Why not with literal fire? The answer is obvious, isn't it?

The fire that Jesus baptizes with isn't literal and neither is the water. By the way.... I don't recall Jesus ever baptizing people in a literal body of water.... Just saying....

In the great commission Christ authorized His disciples to go and teach and baptize. So it would be a human administered baptism and humans can only administer water baptism. Water baptism was how then and now disciples are made and this human administered water baptism that makes one a disciples lasts till the end of the world making it the one baptism of Eph 4:5.


The purpose of Jesus being baptized was to fulfill all righteousness.


Many years ago this writer was in a debate with a denominationalist, during which we discussed the design of baptism. My opponent argued in this fashion.


“We are immersed for the same reason Jesus was. He was not baptized ‘in order to become’ a son of God, but rather, ‘because of’ being a son already. Hence, we are not immersed to become children of God, but because we are such already.”

His argument was invalid for several reasons.

First, it contradicted the plain testimony of Paul, who declared that we become children of God at the point of our baptism into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27).
Second, the argument was inconsistent with the gentleman’s own doctrinal position. Think about this. If it is the case that we are baptized for precisely the same reason Christ was, then it also follows that he was immersed for the same reason that we are. Things equal to each other are equal to the same thing.
Since my opponent claimed that he had been baptized “on account of the forgiveness of his sins,” that would logically imply that Jesus was immersed “on account of the forgiveness of his sins.” This, of course, was a conclusion which my friend would not accept; it was, however, the logical result of his argument.

Thus, except for the fact that Jesus’ baptism reflected a willingness to obey the Father, as does ours, there is little relationship between the Lord’s immersion and that required of all accountable people today (Mk. 16:16).

In the balance of this article I would like to set forth three reasons for the baptism of Jesus by John.

1. It was to identify the Lord as the Son of God at the beginning of his ministry.
2. It was a commencement token of the total dedication of Christ in carrying out Heaven’s plan.
3. It was a visual precursor to the Savior’s ultimate death, burial, and resurrection. Each of these points needs some development.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/584-why-was-jesus-baptized

According to 1John 3:9, the Spirit birth, about which Christ spoke at John
3:3-8, makes it impossible for truly born-again Christians to discontinue
hearing the Lord's word and/or believing in the God who sent him.

Haven't you ever wondered why the Lord testified that the Spirit birth is a
must rather than an option? Well; I should think that the answer to that is
obvious: it's to ensure that the Lord's sheep never, ever commit apostasy.
They might commit a lot of other things; but not that-- the reason being that
God's seed remains in Spirit-born Christians. What's the odds of God
committing apostasy? Zero. Well then the odds of His seed committing
apostasy are zero too.

Bottom line is: In order to be assured of enduring to the end, it is essential
that interested parties get themselves Spirit-born as per John 3:3-8 because
sans that birth, water baptism is about as effective as sacrificing a stray cat
to the Devil.

Buen Camino
/

1 Jn 3:9 says nothing about being impossible to quit hearing and believing. One hears and believes by choice, not compelled against his will, and one can quit by choice and not compelled against his will to continue.


Jn 3:5 is a reference to WATER baptism, not some kind of spirit baptism.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Eph 4:4-5 . . There is one body and one baptism.

Were I to identify the "one" baptism it would absolutely not be water
baptism; it would be the baptism below:

†. Rom 6:3 . . Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?

Water baptism is merely a ritual performed in Christ's name. But the
baptism described in Rom 6:3 is an act of God that places a believer
into Christ; which is a horse of another color.

†. 1Cor 12:13 . . By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body

The "one body" of Eph 4:5 and 1Cor 12:13 is of course Christ's body and it is
simply impossible to get into his body any other way than by a baptism
performed by God's Spirit; in other words; by a supernatural process.

Christianity is a lethal religion. It quite literally-- by a supernatural process
that I do not quite understand --puts its followers to death.

†. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

So then, while it's true that Christ gave his life for the sins of the world; it's
also true that believers gave their own lives for their own sins by means of
their baptism into Christ's body-- a baptism that no man can perform: only
God can perform one's baptism into Christ's body.

There are some who zealously attest that baptism in Christ's name with
water initiates baptism into Christ's body by the Spirit; viz: they say the two
baptisms occur simultaneously. But I have yet to be shown conclusive
scriptural evidence to support their claim. Rather, there is plenty of evidence
to support the claim that baptism into Christ's body by the Spirit occurs prior
to baptism in his name with water; and that the two baptisms aren't
simultaneous at all; but chronologically separate events. It's remarkable the
number of people identifying themselves as Christ's followers who don't
know this.

So: when does baptism into Christ's body by the Spirit occur; if not at the
moment of baptism in his name with water? Answer: at the moment of
belief.

†. Eph 1:13 . . In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the
gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in him with
the Holy Spirit.

Buen Camino
/

 

[SolaGratia]

†. Rom 6:3 . . Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?

Yes. And the word that is translated baptized here (actually, transliterated here), literally means immersed or submerged. I don't bring that up to start a debate about the proper means of water baptism, but to point out that a more accurate translation of this verse is "Don't you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death?"

That's what happens at the moment of salvation: we are immersed into Christ. into his death, into his resurrection, into his glorification. I am now in Christ.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. John 3:5 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There's a lot of speculation going around in regards to the chemistry of the
water Jesus spoke of in John 3:5. But there's really no need to guess at it
seeing as how he saved everybody the trouble by identifying it in the very
next chapter of John's gospel.

The water about which the Lord spoke isn't for washing, nor for irrigation,
nor for bathing, nor for cooking, nor for baptism: it is specifically for
drinking. And the water isn't even natural water; it's supernatural.

†. John 4:10 . . If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you
"Give me a drink" you would have asked him, and he would have given you
living water.

†. John 4:14 . .Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water
springing up to eternal life.

Later, in another chapter of John, Jesus offered the water to anybody and
everybody.

†. John 7:37-38 . . If any man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He
who believes in me, as the scripture said: "From his innermost being shall
flow rivers of living water."

The very last call in the Bible is an invitation to come and get the water.

†. Rev 22:17 . . And the Spirit and the bride say come. And let the one who
hears say come. And let the one who is thirsty come. Let the one who
wishes take the water of life without cost.

The "life" in the water of life is of course eternal life because that's pretty
much the only kind of life that Jesus is authorized to distribute.

†. John 17:2 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as you have given him.

According to John 10:27-28, the good shepherd's sheep have all imbibed
living water. People yet to imbibe the water are somebody else's sheep.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

.
†. John 3:5 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There's a lot of speculation going around in regards to the chemistry of the
water Jesus spoke of in John 3:5. But there's really no need to guess at it
seeing as how he saved everybody the trouble by identifying it in the very
next chapter of John's gospel.

The water about which the Lord spoke isn't for washing, nor for irrigation,
nor for bathing, nor for cooking, nor for baptism: it is specifically for
drinking. And the water isn't even natural water; it's supernatural.

†. John 4:10 . . If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you
"Give me a drink" you would have asked him, and he would have given you
living water.

†. John 4:14 . .Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water
springing up to eternal life.

Later, in another chapter of John, Jesus offered the water to anybody and
everybody.

†. John 7:37-38 . . If any man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He
who believes in me, as the scripture said: "From his innermost being shall
flow rivers of living water."

The very last call in the Bible is an invitation to come and get the water.

†. Rev 22:17 . . And the Spirit and the bride say come. And let the one who
hears say come. And let the one who is thirsty come. Let the one who
wishes take the water of life without cost.

The "life" in the water of life is of course eternal life because that's pretty
much the only kind of life that Jesus is authorized to distribute.

†. John 17:2 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as you have given him.

According to John 10:27-28, the good shepherd's sheep have all imbibed
living water. People yet to imbibe the water are somebody else's sheep.

Buen Camino
/

Proper exegesis is a word is taken literally unless the context shows it is being used figuratively.

In Eph 4:5 baptism" must be understood literally for nothing in the context shows it is being used figuratively:

F.F. Bruce on Eph 4:5: “baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning” (Questions Answered, p. 106)


The same is true for the words water and spirit in Jn 3:5 both are literal for nothing in the context shows either is being used figuratively. You cannot go to remote texts as Jn 4:14 or Rev 22:17 and subsitute those contexts for the context of Jn 3:5. I have always found it interesting that some have no problem with spirit in Jn 3:5 to mean literal spirit but they cannot let water mean literal water.


So Jn 3:5 would be a reference to literal water baptism. The bible is its own best commentary:


Jn 3:5-------------Spirit++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor 12:13------Spirit++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>in the body


1 Cor 12:13 Paul tells us the Corinthians were born again.

The phrases "in the kingdom" and "in the body" are equivalent, both represent a saved position. Since there is just one way to be saved, then both verses MUST express the same idea, that same idea being it takes spirit and WATER BAPTISM to be in the kingdom/in the body. In these two verses spirit is equivalent to spirit and water is equivalent to baptized and in the kingdom is equivalent to in the body.


There is one baptism, Eph 4:5 and it is a literal immersion. 1 Cor 1:14,16 Paul baptized some of the Corinthians himself, and Paul being a human could only administer water baptism as discples were commissioned to do in the great commission, Mk 16:15,16; Mt 28:19,20. So 1 Cor 12:13 is reference to water baptism where the Corinthians were born again.

 

[FHII]

Yes. And the word that is translated baptized here (actually, transliterated here), literally means immersed or submerged. I don't bring that up to start a debate about the proper means of water baptism, but to point out that a more accurate translation of this verse is "Don't you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death?"

That's what happens at the moment of salvation: we are immersed into Christ. into his death, into his resurrection, into his glorification. I am now in Christ.

Good post SolaGratia! That's pretty much what I saw when I looked up the meaning of "baptize". People tend to look at the word and immediately think "Water". It is understandable as it was done at times (but not all the time) in the NT.

Really isn't worth arguing about too much: there is nothing wrong with it, and it was done at times. The only point of contention I have is the belief that IT MUST BE DONE. Repenting must be done, confessing Jesus Christ must be done, being a give must be done, hearing his preaching must be done and we must be immersed in Him... But water baptism? Not any more so than taking a literal communion (that is, literal bread and wine).

I mean.... Good things to do.... But......

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Good post SolaGratia! That's pretty much what I saw when I looked up the meaning of "baptize". People tend to look at the word and immediately think "Water". It is understandable as it was done at times (but not all the time) in the NT.

Really isn't worth arguing about too much: there is nothing wrong with it, and it was done at times. The only point of contention I have is the belief that IT MUST BE DONE. Repenting must be done, confessing Jesus Christ must be done, being a give must be done, hearing his preaching must be done and we must be immersed in Him... But water baptism? Not any more so than taking a literal communion (that is, literal bread and wine).

I mean.... Good things to do.... But......

Baptizo means to immerse, to submerge.

Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

baptize is associated with water, a literal immersion in water.

Acts 10:47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

Again, baptize is connected to water, literal immersion in water.

Obviously the first century NT church practiced a literal immersion in literal water.

The water in these two passages is as literal as the water of Jn 3:5 or 1 Pet 3:21.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

the problem i have with separating Baptism from salvation, besides my belief that it is a sacrament, is that it was synonomous with becoming a Christian throughout the entire Church until the more radical Reformers decided it was optional. claiming that baptism was unnecessary before the Reformation was akin to saying that having relationship with Christ is not really necessary, today. it also is a very convient way for dismissing the authority of the Church

I am going to have to say I agree with you

 

[Poppin]

Baptism is a work - of God!

Galatians 3
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Romans 6:3
How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life

Mark 16
15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

1 Corinthians 12:13
Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit.

Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

Acts 22
16'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

i do not say that someone who for any reason could not be baptised is not saved - just that it would make me wonder if anyone were to ignore the commandment of Christ in the Great Commission; or to despise or denigrate baptism. Baptism is a gift, and the Spirit works in our baptism.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jailer asks what he must do to be saved.
Paul and Silas replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (v. 31)

No mention of baptism being necessary for salvation.

Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

the problem i have with separating Baptism from salvation, besides my belief that it is a sacrament, is that it was synonomous with becoming a Christian throughout the entire Church until the more radical Reformers decided it was optional. claiming that baptism was unnecessary before the Reformation was akin to saying that having relationship with Christ is not really necessary, today. it also is a very convient way for dismissing the authority of the Church

agree!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. 1John 1:3 . .What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that
you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

The koiné Greek word for "fellowship" is koinonia (koy-nohn-ee'-ah) which,
according to the Greek lexicon in the Strong's Concordance means:
partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or
(pecuniary) benefaction

Before proceeding I think it's necessary to point out that John's first epistle
wasn't penned to the world at large; but specifically to his little children
(1John 2:12). In other words: to his converts. So it would be a misuse of
resources to use John's letter as a tool for evangelism when it's intended for
teaching believers; not for teaching unbelievers. John's gospel is the better
resource for teaching unbelievers.

It might shock some to know that it's actually possible for a born-again
Christian to live their entire life out of fellowship with other born-again
Christians and with God and His son and still go to heaven. Yes; it is;
because fellowship isn't mandatory; it's optional.

When I was converted back in 1968, I figured it couldn't get any better than
that. I was on my way to heaven and that was all I wanted out of Christ's
crucifixion. But anon I met a pastor who impressed upon me that I wasn't
rescued from the wrath of God to go off on my own and do as I please; but
rather, to join hands with the Father and His son and live my life in concert
with the sphere of God rather than independently on my own in the sphere
of the world.

†. Gen 17:1 . .When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yhvh appeared to
Abram and said to him: I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be
blameless.

Blameless doesn't mean sinless. I mean; come on; who can be sinless? not
even Abraham could be sinless so if he couldn't do it; then who can?
Nobody. It's humanly impossible.

However, it's possible to be blameless without being sinless.

†. Luke 1:5-7 . . In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain
priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the
daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both
righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments
and requirements of the Lord.

Well; a major portion of the commandments and requirements of the Lord is
the sacrificial system. It was there where the Jews of Zacharias' day
obtained forgiveness for their sins. So; if you're forgiven, you're blameless
even though you are not sinless.

†. 1John 1:8-9 . . If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves,
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous
to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

There again, if you're forgiven and cleansed; then you're blameless even
though you are not sinless.

Every competent Bible teacher I've known all agree that 1John 1:8-9 is
exactly what John meant by walking in the light.

†. 1John 1:5-8 . . And this is the message we have heard from him and
announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If
we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He himself is
in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His
son cleanses us from all sin.

Bottom line is: timely confession of one's sins is an essential element for
fellowship with other born-again Christians, and with the Father and His son.

What's so hot about fellowship with the Father and His son? Well; for one
thing: providence. Webster's defines "almighty" as absolute power over
everything. In other words; if born-again Christians want God's absolute
power over everything working behind the scenes to their advantage, then
it's essential that they practice 1John 1:8-9, it's that simple; and this is
important not just for rank and file pew warmers; but especially born-again
Christians involved in Christian service capacities; e.g. church officers,
missionaries, evangelists, Sunday school teachers, vacation bible school
leaders, choir singers, hostel and orphanage staffs, etc. and even the
exercise of one's spiritual gift.

Buen Camino
/

 

[FHII]

Blameless doesn't mean sinless. I mean; come on; who can be sinless? not
even Abraham could be sinless so if he couldn't do it; then who can?
Nobody. It's humanly impossible.

However, it's possible to be blameless without being sinless.

That's absolutely correct! I think it's Romans 4:7,8 that talks about our sins being covered and that God doesn't impute them. Doesn't mean they aren't there... Just that God covers them and doesn't even bother to count or consider them. Of course, there are those who will say that's only for past sins and not future sins. Jesus' sacrifice -- like the blood of bulls and goats -- doesn't work for the sins you commit in the future.

Of course, I disagree with that but that's just me...

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

1 Jn 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."


Can a Christian walk in the light and NOT have fellowship one with another? No.

I do not see anyway possible how one can be a Christian yet not have fellowship with God and yet still be saved. How can one even become a Christian and not be in fellowship with God?


1 Cor 10:20 "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils"

2 Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Eph 5:11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness..."


If one is not in fellowship with God then he must be in fellowship with devils, unrighteousness and the unfruitful works of darkness for one cannot serve both God and mammon, Mat 6:24 serve both sin and righteousness at the same time, Rom 6:16. It's an either/or proposition.


----------------------------------------------------

Eph 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

God foreknew Christians would be holy and without blame.

Eph 5:27 "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christians/the church are to not have spot or wrinkle, holy and without blame.

2 Pet 3:14 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

Without spot and blameless.

Since not a single sin will enter heaven, the Christian must be without spot, without wrinkle, without blemish, blameless.


Water baptism for the remission of sins is the beginning point as to where one becomes spotless and blameless. 1 Jn 1:7 ..and the Christians conitnued walking in the light keeps Christ's blood continually cleansing away all sin and it's this continual cleansing away of all sin that keeps him spotless and blameless.

It takes continual obedience for this continual cleansing away of all sin to take place.

That's absolutely correct! I think it's Romans 4:7,8 that talks about our sins being covered and that God doesn't impute them. Doesn't mean they aren't there... Just that God covers them and doesn't even bother to count or consider them. Of course, there are those who will say that's only for past sins and not future sins. Jesus' sacrifice -- like the blood of bulls and goats -- doesn't work for the sins you commit in the future.

Of course, I disagree with that but that's just me...

Does God forgive or cover sins that are not repented of? Was David repentant of his sins?

 

[FHII]

1 Jn 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."


Can a Christian walk in the light and NOT have fellowship one with another? No.

I do not see anyway possible how one can be a Christian yet not have fellowship with God and yet still be saved. How can one even become a Christian and not be in fellowship with God?


1 Cor 10:20 "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils"

2 Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Eph 5:11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness..."


If one is not in fellowship with God then he must be in fellowship with devils, unrighteousness and the unfruitful works of darkness for one cannot serve both God and mammon, Mat 6:24 serve both sin and righteousness at the same time, Rom 6:16. It's an either/or proposition.


----------------------------------------------------

Eph 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

God foreknew Christians would be holy and without blame.

Eph 5:27 "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christians/the church are to not have spot or wrinkle, holy and without blame.

2 Pet 3:14 "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."

Without spot and blameless.

Since not a single sin will enter heaven, the Christian must be without spot, without wrinkle, without blemish, blameless.


Water baptism for the remission of sins is the beginning point as to where one becomes spotless and blameless. 1 Jn 1:7 ..and the Christians conitnued walking in the light keeps Christ's blood continually cleansing away all sin and it's this continual cleansing away of all sin that keeps him spotless and blameless.

It takes continual obedience for this continual cleansing away of all sin to take place.

Does God forgive or cover sins that are not repented of? Was David repentant of his sins?

Is Jesus' sacrifice the same as that of Bulls and goats? You choose the stuff you want to address carefully, don't you?

God forgives ALL sins with grace through faith... Past, present and future.

Ephesians 5:26
that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,

I saw this verse yesterday when I was looking to see whether something else had been brought up (and it wasn't...). But I find it hard to believe that no one has brought this verse up.... It's kind of a show stopper. People have talked about a lot of verses in Eph 5, even mentioning verse 27. But not this one. So good call Andelina.

Anyway, what I was looking for is basically what was being said about the purpose of water baptism. It is said (and I agree) that it is for the remission of sins.

Well, perhaps there was a time when that was needed, but I see in Mat 26:28 Jesus saying, For this is my blood of the new testiment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

So if we need remission of sins (which is freedom in the form of a pardon or forgiveness, not necessarily "a stoppage of...") -- and I agree we do -- why would we need both? The only acceptable answer is we don't. Furthermore, when you are baptized into Christ (which is not a water baptism) we are baptized into his death, which is what verses Math 26:28 and Eph 5:26 are talking about.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Is Jesus' sacrifice the same as that of Bulls and goats? You choose the stuff you want to address carefully, don't you?

God forgives ALL sins with grace through faith... Past, present and future.

I saw this verse yesterday when I was looking to see whether something else had been brought up (and it wasn't...). But I find it hard to believe that no one has brought this verse up.... It's kind of a show stopper. People have talked about a lot of verses in Eph 5, even mentioning verse 27. But not this one. So good call Andelina.

Anyway, what I was looking for is basically what was being said about the purpose of water baptism. It is said (and I agree) that it is for the remission of sins.

Well, perhaps there was a time when that was needed, but I see in Mat 26:28 Jesus saying, For this is my blood of the new testiment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

So if we need remission of sins (which is freedom in the form of a pardon or forgiveness, not necessarily "a stoppage of...") -- and I agree we do -- why would we need both? The only acceptable answer is we don't. Furthermore, when you are baptized into Christ (which is not a water baptism) we are baptized into his death, which is what verses Math 26:28 and Eph 5:26 are talking about.

Lk 13:3,5 God does not forgive sins that go unrepented.


Eph 5:26 is speaking of the Ephesians being born again as 1 Cor 12:13 speaks of the Corinthians being born again:


Jn 3:5-------------spirit+++++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor12:13-------spirit+++++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Eph 5:26--------the word+++++++++++washing of water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cleansed


Rom 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

This baptism into Jesus Christ is water baptism, the one literal immersion of Eph 4:5.

Rom 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."


This baptism into Christ consists of a burial that one is raised up from, buried in a watery grave from which one is raised up from to walk in newness of life having had his old sins remitted, Rom 6:5 a planting and resurrection. Not only does this burial and resurrection from a watery grave save, it is also symbolic of Christ's own burial and resurrection.

Col 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

A burial (not a sprinkling) from which one is risen.

 

[FHII]

This is for Ernest or really anyone else that knows the answer: Where is the verse that says the thief on the cross received a water baptism?

Now then Ernest... I completely agree with you that water baptism is symbolic. It is symbolic of being baptized into Christ, his death and resurrection. That is the real baptism we need. Likewise we don't need to be circumcised in the flesh, but in the heart and ears (Acts 7:51).

 

[Webers_Home]

Where is the verse that says the thief on the cross received a water baptism?

According to Heb 9:16-17 Christianity didn't become a religion until after
Christ was dead. So then, in reality, the thief died under the jurisdiction of
Moses' covenanted law; which is a law that does not sanction human
sacrifice; nor does it sanction ritual baptism in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Buen Camino
/