Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[ForestGreenCook]

According to Jesus, Those who believe and get baptized shall be saved. Those who don't believe ( that includes that sins are remitted in baptism per God's word) are damned already. Belief and corresponding action result in people being saved. The following conversion experiences speak to fact that being baptized in water in the name of the Lord Jesus is not optional. (Acts 2:36-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

Acts 2:36-42 - When a person has been born again (Ezk 11:19-20) God exchanges their stony heart to a heart of flesh (a heart of flesh is soft and has a spiritual conscience that can be pricked by God).

When Peter accused these Jews of crucifying Christ, they were pricked in their heart, and said 'Men and brethren , what shall we do? We can compare this with the heart of stone of those that were "cut to the heart" and stoned Stephen to death for preaching the same sermon that Peter taught. (Acts 7:54).

Acts 2:38 - Peter told them to be baptised for (unto) the remission of sins. The remission of sins took place on the cross (Matt 26:28).

1 Pet 3:21 - The like figure (Noah being saved from drowning) whereunto even baptism doth also now save (deliver) us from our guilt, as baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God. Save, according to Greek interpretation means deliver.

1 Pet 3:21 applies to all of your other scripture references.

 

[Wansvic]

Right, like the scripture where Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

What is the name? The answer is revealed in how the apostles obeyed Jesus' command. They baptized everyone in the name of Jesus. For in Jesus dwells ALL the fulness of the Godhead. (Acts 2:36-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

The sad truth is many are following a manmade tradition begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church. Let that sink in.

 

[ResidentAlien]

What is the name? The answer is revealed in how the apostles obeyed Jesus' command. They baptized everyone in the name of Jesus. For in Jesus dwells ALL the fulness of the Godhead. (Acts 2:36-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

The sad truth is many are following a manmade tradition begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church. Let that sink in.

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for but you're letting Catholic hyper-paranoia get the better of you on this one. The fact is we have two possibilities in scripture: One, a direct command from from the Lord; Two, clear examples where they baptized only in the name of Jesus.

The reality is, either one is okay. I know you'll disagree till you're dying breath but that's okay, I've already let the truth sink in so I'm not troubled by your false teaching.

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 2:36-42 - When a person has been born again (Ezk 11:19-20) God exchanges their stony heart to a heart of flesh (a heart of flesh is soft and has a spiritual conscience that can be pricked by God).

When Peter accused these Jews of crucifying Christ, they were pricked in their heart, and said 'Men and brethren , what shall we do? We can compare this with the heart of stone of those that were "cut to the heart" and stoned Stephen to death for preaching the same sermon that Peter taught. (Acts 7:54).

Acts 2:38 - Peter told them to be baptised for (unto) the remission of sins. The remission of sins took place on the cross (Matt 26:28).

1 Pet 3:21 - The like figure (Noah being saved from drowning) whereunto even baptism doth also now save (deliver) us from our guilt, as baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God. Save, according to Greek interpretation means deliver.

1 Pet 3:21 applies to all of your other scripture references.

How do Ananias' words factor into your understanding? He instructed Paul to be baptized and wash away his sin calling on the name of the Lord. (another confirmation that water baptism is to be done in the name of the Lord) The account provides evidence that Paul's sin was not remitted when Jesus first appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Both belief in Jesus and believing His truth spoken through Ananias concerning baptism was essential to Paul's salvation. Jesus explained this concept before His ascension: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

 

[Webers.Home]

.

The more appropriate translation (see the interlinear) is "in one Spirit" not
"by one Spirit".

We had a saying when I was in the Army that went something like this:

"There's nothing more dangerous than a PFC with a clipboard."

Well; here on the internet I have a saying that parallels that one. It goes
like this:

"There's nothing more dangerous on Bible forums than an armchair linguist."

Look; it's okay to post alternate translations, but my unsolicited advice is:
avoid posting yours as if they're the best available because even the experts
are stumped sometimes how to go about rendering the ancient languages
into modern English; especially the little Greek word "en" which is so horribly
ambiguous that I have to wonder if anybody has it right.

BTW: The interlinear bundled with my Bible software has it as "by" one Spirit.
I'm not alleging my interlinear is spot-on, only reporting what it says.
_

 

[ForestGreenCook]

How do Ananias' words factor into your understanding? He instructed Paul to be baptized and wash away his sin calling on the name of the Lord. (another confirmation that water baptism is to be done in the name of the Lord) The account provides evidence that Paul's sin was not remitted when Jesus first appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Both belief in Jesus and believing His truth spoken through Ananias concerning baptism was essential to Paul's salvation. Jesus explained this concept before His ascension: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

Paul was taught of the old law by the best teacher in his day, and went about persecuting the church, with all good conscience, which tells me that he was one of God's elect redeemed from his sins on the cross. He was already born again at the event that took place on the road to Damascus. At this event Paul was converted (turned around) to understand the truth.

There is a difference in being born again and conversion. Conversion can happen at the same time that a person is born again, but most of the time conversion comes sometime after the new birth.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Ps 22:1 . . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so
far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

The Hebrew word for "roaring" is sheagah (sheh-aw-gaw') which means: a
rumbling or moan.

In other words: people standing around the cross that day during those
three hours of inky dark couldn't see anything, but they could sure hear:
and what they heard were the dreadful screams of a man in extreme
discomfort as God laid into him for the sins of the whole world.

• Isa 52:14-15 . . there were many who were appalled at him-- his
appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred
beyond human likeness --thus will he sprinkle many nations

The Romans whipped Christ to within an inch of his life, slapped him around,
crowned him with thorns, and nailed his body to a tree. But that was child's
play compared to what God did. By the time those hours of darkness lifted;
the extent of Christ's injuries were so horrific that folks there that day could
scarcely tell he was the same man

My question is: After going thru all that hell; does anybody in a right mind
seriously believe Jesus will permit himself to lose somebody simply because
they didn't undergo a harmless ritual?!?!?! God forbid.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
"He that hears my word, and believes on Him that sent me, and is baptized,
shall be saved."

"He that hears my word, and believes on Him that sent me, but not baptized,
shall be damned."
_

 

[Wansvic]

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for but you're letting Catholic hyper-paranoia get the better of you on this one. The fact is we have two possibilities in scripture: One, a direct command from from the Lord; Two, clear examples where they baptized only in the name of Jesus.

The reality is, either one is okay. I know you'll disagree till you're dying breath but that's okay, I've already let the truth sink in so I'm not troubled by your false teaching.

I don't see drawing a conclusion from historical facts as hyper-paranoia. Whether accepted or not, the truth is out there for all to see. The forerunners of the RCC distorted baptism in 325 A.D. when they insisted the phrase be used instead of the all powerful name of Jesus as the bible reveals.

The reason I disagree with your conclusion is because if either one was acceptable we would see that confirmed in the word. We don't. The apostles baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus reveals they knew the name Jesus referred to Matt. 28:29 was His own.

Scripture records that there is no other name under heaven WHEREBY men MUST be saved. (Acts 4:12) And that truth can easily seen as applying to water baptism.

 

[cv5]

Man trusts the Lord and obeys. It is the Lord who brings about the spiritual reality He said it would.

No argument there. Nevertheless, rites, rituals and ordinances have zero salvific value. Never did never will. They are types and shadows, meant to bring us to remembrance.

Heb 9:9
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Heb 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

 

[cv5]

He instructed Paul to be baptized and wash away his sin

So....physical water is that which actually washes away sins? Yea....sounds very Roman Catholicy to me...

 

[Webers.Home]

.
From the sixteenth chapter of the gospel of Mark:

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

17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Now: I must insist that if verse 16 applies to everyone that believes, then it
follows that verses 17 & 18 must also apply to all who believe.

Well; I guess I'm going to Hell as an unbeliever because I cannot speak in
tongues nor exorcise demons. And I'm sure not fool enough to drink acetone
and/or handle rattlesnakes. I've had plenty enough experiences with those
critters out west in California to know it's wise to respect their comfort zone.
And as for healing the sick: forget it.

The thing is: scholars are not all that certain beyond a shadow of sensible
doubt that Mark 16:9-20 is supposed to be in Mark's gospel; so I highly
recommend not enforcing the sixteenth verse as a hard and fast rule of
salvation lest we find ourselves some day with egg on our faces getting a
severe tongue-lashing from a very ticked off Jesus.
_

 

[cv5]

Why don't they admit it on here when asked?

I have asked many times.

Because their seared conscience won't let them?
Because they desire to ensnare you in their error/apostasy/heresy?

I will tell you what. If you do not get straight answers right quickly, leave.
It took me 1-1/2 years to finally get my last pastor to admit he was an amillenialist.
Him and his lieutenants kept it a closely guarded secret.

BTW....I figured it out by his wackadoo treatment of end-time eschatology. I knew something was up. Then he let it slip out a little while later. Crazy I know.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I don't see drawing a conclusion from historical facts as hyper-paranoia. Whether accepted or not, the truth is out there for all to see. The forerunners of the RCC distorted baptism in 325 A.D. when they insisted the phrase be used instead of the all powerful name of Jesus as the bible reveals.

The reason I disagree with your conclusion is because if either one was acceptable we would see that confirmed in the word. We don't. The apostles baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus reveals they knew the name Jesus referred to Matt. 28:29 was His own.

Scripture records that there is no other name under heaven WHEREBY men MUST be saved. (Acts 4:12) And that truth can easily seen as applying to water baptism.

Like I said, from your cold dead hand.

 

[cv5]

.
From the sixteenth chapter of the gospel of Mark:

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

17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Now: I must insist that if verse 16 applies to everyone that believes, then it
follows that verses 17 & 18 must also apply to all who believe.

Well; I guess I'm going to Hell as an unbeliever because I cannot speak in
tongues nor exorcise demons. And I'm sure not fool enough to drink acetone
and/or handle rattlesnakes. I've had plenty enough experiences with those
critters out west in California to know it's wise to respect their comfort zone.
And as for healing the sick: forget it.

The thing is: scholars are not all that certain beyond a shadow of sensible
doubt that Mark 16:9-20 is supposed to be in Mark's gospel; so I highly
recommend not enforcing the sixteenth verse as a hard and fast rule of
salvation lest we find ourselves some day with egg on our faces getting a
severe tongue-lashing from a very ticked off Jesus.
_

Well....I think this hearkens back to when Jesus gave his disciples exousia.

Mat 10:1
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power G1849 against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

 

[cv5]

Man trusts the Lord and obeys. It is the Lord who brings about the spiritual reality He said it would.

"The blood of Jesus seals the covenant of grace, and makes it for ever sure."
-Spurgeon

Since when is baptism part of the New Covenant sealed by His blood?

 

[Webers.Home]

.

He instructed Paul to be baptized and wash away his sin calling on the name
of the Lord.

Were the common interpretation of that verse a hard and fast rule for
salvation, folks would have to undergo ritual baptism each and every time
they needed to wash away their sins.

However, the thing is: there's no punctuation in classic Koiné Greek, so
scholars insert it in English translations arbitrarily, i.e. at their own discretion
where they think there should be some. So then, here's that passage first in
its usual form, and then with its punctuation arbitrarily repositioned.

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord."

"And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized; and wash away thy sins
calling on the name of the Lord."

All thru the Bible, the usual means for cleansing oneself of sins has been by
means of confession; and it still is.

• Ps 32:5-6 . . I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I
not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto The Lord; and thou
forgavest the iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly pray
unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found.

• 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
_

 

[cv5]

"The blood of Jesus seals the covenant of grace, and makes it for ever sure."
-Spurgeon

Since when is baptism part of the New Covenant sealed by His blood?

" The blood of Jesus seals the covenant of grace, and makes it for ever sure. Covenants of old were made by sacrifice, and the everlasting covenant was ratified in the same manner. Oh, the delight of being saved upon the sure foundation of divine engagements which cannot be dishonoured! Salvation by the works of the law is a frail and broken vessel whose shipwreck is sure; but the covenant vessel fears no storms, for the blood ensures the whole. "

-Spurgeon

 

[Wansvic]

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for but you're letting Catholic hyper-paranoia get the better of you on this one. The fact is we have two possibilities in scripture: One, a direct command from from the Lord; Two, clear examples where they baptized only in the name of Jesus.

The reality is, either one is okay. I know you'll disagree till you're dying breath but that's okay, I've already let the truth sink in so I'm not troubled by your false teaching.

False teaching results when a person shares personal opinions. The baptism concepts I shared are confirmed directly from the word of the God. And, as such, yes I will continue to stand on that word rather than disagree with it concerning how water baptism is to be administered and it's purpose.

I am not saying I will never change my mind in matters relevant to the word. But not where water baptism is concerned. The bible is crystal clear. And if and when the truth is believed and acted on, it brings about further revelation concerning God's word.

 

[Ted01]

What is the name? The answer is revealed in how the apostles obeyed Jesus' command. They baptized everyone in the name of Jesus. For in Jesus dwells ALL the fulness of the Godhead. (Acts 2:36-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

The sad truth is many are following a manmade tradition begun by the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church. Let that sink in.

Your post made me wonder about something...
I don't know of any Scripture that speaks to the Apostles getting baptized in Jesus' name after His death/Resurrection?
Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Anyway, I assume that they were baptized earlier for the remission of sin... either by John or someone else (perhaps Jesus himself(?).
IDK...