I forgot to be baptized

[DJ2]

Faulty human logic. A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick."

Of course it's the medication that makes one well and not the water, but it logically follows that we wash the medication down with water. If no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made well BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION.

It's the same with water baptism. It logically follows that we get water baptized after we believe and are saved, but if no water is available (particularly due to a death bed conversion) you will still be saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..

Faulty human logic?

Jesus states, "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

You read this to mean that baptism is not needed to be saved? And I am using faulty human logic?

There is no other way to describe your comment other then willful ignorance.

The latter part of the verse does not address who will be saved but who are condemned. Unbelief is being in a state of condemnation. Believing and being baptized is the state of salvation. This is plainly what the verse means.

"Even as He spoke, many believed in Him. To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said 'If you hold to my teachings you are truly my disciples'. John 8:30-31

Jesus is calling for both belief and the holding to His teaching as being His disciple. You can label "holding to His teaching" as a work but never the less it is necessary to be a disciple.

Jesus' omission of baptism eight words after His affirmation of baptism does not negate the affirmation. In other words, the lack of a negative does not prove a positive. This is your "faulty human logic".

 

[DJ2]

Faulty human logic. A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick."

Of course it's the medication that makes one well and not the water, but it logically follows that we wash the medication down with water. If no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made well BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION.

It's the same with water baptism. It logically follows that we get water baptized after we believe and are saved, but if no water is available (particularly due to a death bed conversion) you will still be saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..

All the medication in the world is worthless if not properly administered. If someone is prescribed eye drops for pinkeye, it would be worthless if they took it orally.

Medicine without the proper usage is worthless. Faith without proper works is worthless.

 

[DJ2]

My conclusion is not twisted and is the result of *properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.*

It's actually your theology that is forcing a strained meaning of salvation by water baptism "water baptized or condemned" in (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) *when Jesus clearly said "whoever does not believe will be condemned" and Jesus did not even mention water baptism in those passages of scripture in John.

I think you know this, but because of your deep indoctrination and for the sake of accommodating your biased church doctrine, you continue to roll with it.

You are "harmonizing scripture" to fit your theology, nothing more. There is no need to concoct such a strained meaning to such a simple passage. If baptism is not part of the plan of salvation why would Jesus say such a thing? Why?

 

[mailmandan]

Faulty human logic?

Jesus states, "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

You read this to mean that baptism is not needed to be saved? And I am using faulty human logic?

If we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2. He who does not believe will be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. While this verse does tell us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

*In order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: "He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned" or "He who is not baptized will be condemned." *But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

*If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

There is no other way to describe your comment other then willful ignorance.

Biblical hermeneutics describes my comment. Biased church doctrine describes your comment.

The latter part of the verse does not address who will be saved but who are condemned. Unbelief is being in a state of condemnation. Believing and being baptized is the state of salvation. This is plainly what the verse means.

Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief.

*NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

"Even as He spoke, many believed in Him. To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said 'If you hold to my teachings you are truly my disciples'. John 8:30-31

John 8:31 - "..If you continue in My word (demonstrative evidence), then you are TRULY disciples of Mine (NASB)." Continue to read through verse 59. What did Jesus say to these Jews who supposedly believed in Him?

Jesus is calling for both belief and the holding to His teaching as being His disciple. You can label "holding to His teaching" as a work but never the less it is necessary to be a disciple.

Continuing in His word is the demonstrative evidence that we are TRULY His disciples. Believers continue in His word (not to become disciples) but because they are TRULY His disciples.

Jesus' omission of baptism eight words after His affirmation of baptism does not negate the affirmation. In other words, the lack of a negative does not prove a positive. This is your "faulty human logic".

If water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, then the Lord would not make so many statements that receiving eternal life/salvation is received through believing in Him/faith "apart from "additions or modifications" - (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). Yet you say otherwise. This continues to remain your "faulty human logic."

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Period.

 

[mailmandan]

All the medication in the world is worthless if not properly administered. If someone is prescribed eye drops for pinkeye, it would be worthless if they took it orally.

Medicine without the proper usage is worthless. Faith without proper works is worthless.

It's obvious that I'm talking about medication that is taken orally and not eyes drops. I have taken medication before "without water" and was still made well "apart from the water." James does not teach that we are saved through faith + the proper works. This continues to remain your stumbling block. Paul certainly did not teach that either in Ephesians 2:8,9.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says-claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" He is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *Please listen closely - James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

Keep in mind that James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

 

[mailmandan]

You are "harmonizing scripture" to fit your theology, nothing more. There is no need to concoct such a strained meaning to such a simple passage. If baptism is not part of the plan of salvation why would Jesus say such a thing? Why?

I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. I did not concoct a strained meaning to Mark 16:16. I actually considered the WHOLE verse, yet you concocted a strained meaning to the passage by refusing to acknowledge that Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned which further results in a strained meaning of John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 in which Jesus clearly connects BELIEVES IN HIM "apart from additions or modifications" to receiving eternal life.

 

[DJ2]

I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. I did not concoct a strained meaning to Mark 16:16. I actually considered the WHOLE verse, yet you concocted a strained meaning to the passage by refusing to acknowledge that Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned which further results in a strained meaning of John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 in which Jesus clearly connects BELIEVES IN HIM "apart from additions or modifications" to receiving eternal life.

What you call "harmonizing scripture" is really nothing more then ignoring aspects of verses because they do not fit your understanding of salvation, you see baptism as a work therefore you ignore it. Excuses such as deathbed conversions does not negate the need for obedience. You are simply ignoring the scriptures and my question.

I will ask it again. If baptism is not part of the plan of salvation why would Jesus say such a thing? Why?

I am not asking you to explain away the baptism part but explain why Jesus would even utter such a thing as "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."

 

[hornetguy]

I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. I did not concoct a strained meaning to Mark 16:16. I actually considered the WHOLE verse, yet you concocted a strained meaning to the passage by refusing to acknowledge that Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned which further results in a strained meaning of John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26 in which Jesus clearly connects BELIEVES IN HIM "apart from additions or modifications" to receiving eternal life.

You and I have had this discussion a few times... I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it... to a point.

My view/understanding of this (for all the new folks here) is that we cannot fully understand our salvation, our entering into the new covenant with Christ, without understanding the obvious correlation, (even described in scripture), to the Jews entering the old covenant.

I do not view being saved as being a matter of merely "accepting" your "get out of jail free" card by saying "yep, I want it", any more than a boy born into the old covenant would be a "Jew" simply by being born. There is more to the "acceptance" of the covenant than that. The boy had to be circumcised, which was an outward sign of his condition of being "in the covenant".

I believe that baptism is our outward sign of accepting the gift of salvation, and joining in the new covenant, just as circumcision was the sign for the old covenant.

While the act of circumcision, or baptism, is not the act that saves us, it is still OUR part of the process of accepting, or entering into the covenant, and is required of us. Any refusal to do that would indicate a refusal to be obedient to Christ, and would, in my mind, indicate that the person had no intention of entering into the new covenant..... just as a male who professed to be a Jew, but refused to be circumcised (if he had the choice) would not be considered a part of the old covenant.

I can see no other way to reconcile scripture, and all the teachings of baptism/salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

What you call "harmonizing scripture" is really nothing more then ignoring aspects of verses because they do not fit your understanding of salvation, you see baptism as a work therefore you ignore it. Excuses such as deathbed conversions does not negate the need for obedience. You are simply ignoring the scriptures and my question.

Again, I simply harmonize scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. Your method of hermeneutics amounts to distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan. A deathbed conversion is not an excuse (it happens) and BELIEVERS will be saved (like the thief on the cross) even if they are unable to get water baptized before they die.

I will ask it again. If baptism is not part of the plan of salvation why would Jesus say such a thing? Why? I am not asking you to explain away the baptism part but explain why Jesus would even utter such a thing as "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."

Why not utter such a thing? It logically follows that we get baptized after we believe and are saved. Now in describing the believer, you can add baptism, as long as you are speaking of one who truly believes (trusts) in Christ for salvation, you can most certainly say of him, "he will be saved." Surely, if he that believes is not condemned (John 3:18), then he that believes and is baptized will be saved as well.

It truly amazes me how you are so fixated on Mark 16:16(a) yet practically ignore Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. If water baptism is part of the plan ofsalvation (absolutely required for salvation without exceptions), then why did Jesus not include water baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26? Why?

 

[graceNpeace]

What you call "harmonizing scripture" is really nothing more then ignoring aspects of verses because they do not fit your understanding of salvation, you see baptism as a work therefore you ignore it. Excuses such as deathbed conversions does not negate the need for obedience. You are simply ignoring the scriptures and my question.

I will ask it again. If baptism is not part of the plan of salvation why would Jesus say such a thing? Why?

I am not asking you to explain away the baptism part but explain why Jesus would even utter such a thing as "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."

Well you are certainly unable to harmonise Scripture since you are unable to read and understand a complete sentence!
Mark 16:16 has a definite emphasis and it is about faith (or the lack of it) and NOT baptism.
The thing that distinguishes the saved from the condemned is simply faith or belief.

Baptism is certainly not the discriminator!
Baptism has a place, but only as a consequence of the faith or belief that saves, it is certainly not the cause of salvation but only the consequence of that salvation by faith...

 

[DJ2]

If we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2. He who does not believe will be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. While this verse does tell us something about believers who have been baptized (they will be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

*In order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: "He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned" or "He who is not baptized will be condemned." *But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

*If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics describes my comment. Biased church doctrine describes your comment.

Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned." The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief.

*NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 8:31 - "..If you continue in My word (demonstrative evidence), then you are TRULY disciples of Mine (NASB)." Continue to read through verse 59. What did Jesus say to these Jews who supposedly believed in Him?

Continuing in His word is the demonstrative evidence that we are TRULY His disciples. Believers continue in His word (not to become disciples) but because they are TRULY His disciples.

If water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation, then the Lord would not make so many statements that receiving eternal life/salvation is received through believing in Him/faith "apart from "additions or modifications" - (Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..). Yet you say otherwise. This continues to remain your "faulty human logic."

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Period.

"The omission of baptized with 'does not believe' shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Period."

Doctrine is not based on what is not said. But what is said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".

Every conversion after the resurrection of Jesus has baptism in it. The Great Commission commands it. Peter's first sermon commands it.

Pointing out places where it is not mentioned is but looking for loopholes to escape the obvious.

 

[mailmandan]

Well you are certainly unable to harmonise Scripture since you are unable to read and understand a complete sentence!
Mark 16:16 has a definite emphasis and it is about faith (or the lack of it) and NOT baptism.
The thing that distinguishes the saved from the condemned is simply faith or belief.

Baptism is certainly not the discriminator!
Baptism has a place, but only as a consequence of the faith or belief that saves, it is certainly not the cause of salvation but only the consequence of that salvation by faith...

It's nice to see that someone gets it.

 

[mailmandan]

"The omission of baptized with 'does not believe' shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Period."

Doctrine is not based on what is not said. But what is said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved".

Every conversion after the resurrection of Jesus has baptism in it. The Great Commission commands it. Peter's first sermon commands it.

Pointing out places where it is not mentioned is but looking for loopholes to escape the obvious.

One of the most popular arguments which "church of Christ" debaters in their effort to prove the necessity of baptism before one is saved is the idea that in the Book of Acts baptism is always referred to in connection with a conversion. This is patently false.

Here are the instances of conversions in Acts where baptism is mentioned:
4:4
5:14
9:35
9:42
11:21
11:24
Chapters 13 and 14 -- Paul's first journey -- baptism not mentioned.
13:12
13:43
13:48
14:1
14:21
14:27
17:4
17:12
17:34
19:17-20
28:23, 24

Notice that not once is baptism "specifically mentioned" in the conversions on Paul's first missionary journey. Don't misunderstand me -- I am not saying that baptism was not eventually administered, but I am simply denying the false assertion that baptism is "specifically mentioned" in every case or instance of conversions.

*The book of Acts leaves no doubt what the Lord commands us today to be saved (Acts 4:4; 5:9; 5:14; 9:42; 10:43; 13:12; 13:39; 14:1; 14:27; 15:9; 16:31; 17:12; 17:34; 26:18). We are saved the moment that we BELIEVE (trust, rely) in Christ alone for salvation.

 

[hornetguy]

But, as DJ2 pointed out, the message is not in what was NOT said, but what WAS said...

If there had only been one scripture mention that salvation included believing and being baptized, that would be enough. Every other scripture that didn't mention it, would imply it, because of the one scripture.

But.... there is NOT only one scripture. There are many scriptures, and examples, and the direct words of Jesus that tell us it is necessary. Picking and choosing a scripture that doesn't spell out exactly, step by step, what is required for salvation does not negate the fact that it WAS mentioned/commanded/illustrated, many times.

Again.... if it is not necessary, then why do it at all? Why would Jesus say to do it? Why would all the apostles teach it? Why would every believer think it was necessary, all the way down to the "reformation" ? You mean, we/they were all duped?


edit.... oh, and many of those scriptures you posted were simply talking about believers... NOT saying anything about how they achieved salvation.. which makes them pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[DJ2]

It's obvious that I'm talking about medication that is taken orally and not eyes drops. I have taken medication before "without water" and was still made well "apart from the water." James does not teach that we are saved through faith + the proper works. This continues to remain your stumbling block. Paul certainly did not teach that either in Ephesians 2:8,9.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says-claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" He is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *Please listen closely - James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

Keep in mind that James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

Regardless of what medication, if not administered correctly is useless. Even the most sincere faith in the medicine, if not taken by following the instructions of the doctor will not help.

Your analogy but proves action of the person is needed not simply faith in the power or promise of the medicine.

 

[DJ2]

It's obvious that I'm talking about medication that is taken orally and not eyes drops. I have taken medication before "without water" and was still made well "apart from the water." James does not teach that we are saved through faith + the proper works. This continues to remain your stumbling block. Paul certainly did not teach that either in Ephesians 2:8,9.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says-claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" He is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *Please listen closely - James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

Keep in mind that James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3).

Mailmandan: "Please listen closely - James does not teach that we are saved "by" works."

James: You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them off by another way?" James 2:22-25

And I have a stumbling block?

 

[mailmandan]

I believe that baptism is our outward sign of accepting the gift of salvation, and joining in the new covenant, just as circumcision was the sign for the old covenant.

I can agree with baptism is the "outward sign" of accepting the gift of salvation. Accepting the gift of salvation and receiving eternal life is signified, yet not procured in baptism.

While the act of circumcision, or baptism, is not the act that saves us, it is still OUR part of the process of accepting, or entering into the covenant, and is required of us. Any refusal to do that would indicate a refusal to be obedient to Christ, and would, in my mind, indicate that the person had no intention of entering into the new covenant..... just as a male who professed to be a Jew, but refused to be circumcised (if he had the choice) would not be considered a part of the old covenant.

I can see no other way to reconcile scripture, and all the teachings of baptism/salvation.

Anyone professing to believe in Jesus (John 3:16) and yet refusing to be water baptized is of questionable sincerity. It's unthinkable that anyone who has truly placed their faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ for salvation would refuse to be water baptized. I can't think of one Christian that I know who has refused to be water baptized.

Notice, however, those who Jesus said would be condemned: "whoever does not believe." There have been death bed conversions with no opportunity to receive water baptism, yet those who truly believe will not be condemned (John 3:18). To say "whoever is not water baptized will not be saved"--"water baptized or condemned" (without exceptions) goes beyond what scripture says.

 

[graceNpeace]

Notice, however, those who Jesus said would be condemned: "whoever does not believe." There have been death bed conversions with no opportunity to receive water baptism, yet those who truly believe will not be condemned (John 3:18). To say "whoever is not water baptized will not be saved"--"water baptized or condemned" (without exceptions) goes beyond what scripture says.

Absolutely!

 

[mailmandan]

But, as DJ2 pointed out, the message is not in what was NOT said, but what WAS said...

If there had only been one scripture mention that salvation included believing and being baptized, that would be enough. Every other scripture that didn't mention it, would imply it, because of the one scripture.

But.... there is NOT only one scripture. There are many scriptures, and examples, and the direct words of Jesus that tell us it is necessary. Picking and choosing a scripture that doesn't spell out exactly, step by step, what is required for salvation does not negate the fact that it WAS mentioned/commanded/illustrated, many times.

Again.... if it is not necessary, then why do it at all? Why would Jesus say to do it? Why would all the apostles teach it? Why would every believer think it was necessary, all the way down to the "reformation" ? You mean, we/they were all duped?

edit.... oh, and many of those scriptures you posted were simply talking about believers... NOT saying anything about how they achieved salvation.. which makes them pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

How do scriptures which make it clear that salvation is through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications" imply baptism? There is a "distinction between" between BELIEVING IN HIM and getting water baptized AFTERWARDS and water baptism FOLLOWS believing in Him. Repentance does not need to be mentioned every time along with faith in regards to receiving salvation because repentance precedes saving faith in Christ so it is implied, but not water baptism which follows saving faith in Christ.

*In Acts 11:17, we read that they received the same gift (Holy Spirit) when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christand this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) It was an established fact that these Gentiles believed on the Lord Jesus Christ before they received water baptism and in Acts 16:31, we read - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The Bible is clear that man is saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

These Gentiles in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the spiritual gift of tongues (which is only for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) after believing the gospel but before being water baptized (Acts 10:44-48). This observation needs to be balanced, by the fact that baptism was not considered an "optional extra" for these Gentiles. It was a command (verse 48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ (verse 43).

Although there are a multitude of verses that make it clear salvation is through belief/faith, there are not many passages that make it clear baptism is necessary for salvation, although there may be a handful of verses that "on the surface" may appear to teach that. A careful examination of each of these texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism is an initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, these texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

Regardless of what medication, if not administered correctly is useless. Even the most sincere faith in the medicine, if not taken by following the instructions of the doctor will not help.

Your analogy but proves action of the person is needed not simply faith in the power or promise of the medicine.

You keep missing my point. It's the medication that heals, not the water. Period. Faith is only as good as the OBJECT that we place it in. Unfortunately, there are many sincere (but sincerely wrong) people who have received water baptism, but have not placed their faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation. Such people may believe "mental assent" that Jesus is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened" yet fall short of saving faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation and instead their trust and reliance is in "water and works" for salvation.