Harry3142 said:
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."
Dodo_David said:
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.
Dodo_David said:
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.
FHII said:
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.
- It was to identify the Lord as the Son of God at the beginning of his ministry.
- It was a commencement token of the total dedication of Christ in carrying out Heaven’s plan.
- 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
Webers_Home said:
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.