Questions on Baptism

[Ovedya]

Alright, so here are some questions . . . Do you have to be baptized in order to be saved?

Technically, no. Baptism in the Bible is a sign of your consecration to the Lord. It is a proclamation to the world and to the powers and pricipalities of your dedication to the Lord the Jesus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rukkus, here is an example of the statement I made earlier:

While the truth of the matter is absolute and doesn't change with the opinions of man, but the answer you get depends on who you ask.

For the record, you will never find a passage in the Bible that says baptism is merely a sign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"For the record" I didn't say that baptism is "merely" a sign.

[Khristeeanos]

"For the record" I didn't say that baptism is "merely" a sign. 

Very true, and for that I apologize. Please forgive me for inserting words into your post.

[Ovedya]

"For the record" I didn't say that baptism is "merely" a sign.

[Guest hubertdorm]

 

Baptism is not what saves, the blood of Christ does. However, it does have  purpose. 

 

1 Peter 3:21 

 

21) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I have heard many commentary's on this verse, most saying that this is proof that baptism is not necessary for salvation and I agree.

The only verse in the Bible that reads, "baptism now saves you..." is the one that proves baptism does not save? We can debate here whether Peter is speaking of water or spirit (or both), but the scripture is clear that "baptism saves you." If you just read this verse without adding or removing any words, if you interpret it based on the words alone and not the doctrine taught, the scripture simply says that "baptism now saves you."

Again, whether Peter is referring to water baptism or not is what should be debated.

In my opinion when one truley finds Jesus and have been born again, the water is something that they can't wait to have. 

But wait they must, if they are in attendance with a church group that doesn't exhibit an urgency towards baptism. These churches schedule baptisms once a month or even less frequently.

Its not the baptism that saves, but the appeal to God for a clean conscience which only the blood can do, but this is not to say that baptism is something to take lightly or we can ignore.

I agree that the blood of Jesus, not water, washes away sin. So, when does the blood of Jesus cleanse? In baptism.

Now for some it is impossible to be baptised, such as those who are saved at their moment of death such as the theif on the cross or the death bed salvations that you have heard.

The thief's/robber's inability to be baptized had nothing to do with his unfortunate circumstances. Had both of his feet been planted on the ground, free of his death sentence, he still would not have been able to be baptized. This is because the gospel had not been fulfilled.

1 Cor.15:2 By this gospel you are saved...

v. 3 that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

v. 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

v. 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Jesus may have died before the thief, but he certainly had not died before he could tell the thief he would be in paradise. Jesus had not been buried not resurrected. How then was the thief saved by the Gospel? He wasn't. He was saved as his forefathers were. The baptism of the church had no meaning at this point.

Now there are t6hos who put too much emphasis on the baptism and not on the Baptiser (Jesus), this is where you find infant baptism, and those who are baptised and have not even come close to repentance (The appeal to God for a clean conscienc, I.E. to be born again), they do this as a religous rite, does this save them? My answer to that is NO!

It is this precise reason that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church:

1 Cor. 1:14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,

v. 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name...

v. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Some say this section is proof that baptism is not part of the Gospel, or is of little importance. However, we find the opposite true. The Corinthian church was experiencing divisions. Believers were boasting of who they followed or who they were baptized by.

v. 13 Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

Paul makes a direct connection between baptism and the crucifixion. Remember in Romans 6 he wrote that through baptism we are united with Christ's death and resurrection.

There is no "Baptism vs. Gospel" argument to be found here. We do find a contrast of "Baptizing vs. Preaching." Paul was sent to do the latter. Someone else can baptize.

You cannot go around the Savior by different gates such as baptism, works etc and expect to be welcome in the kingdom, Jesus is the way, the Only way. 

I agree that we cannot side-step the Savior. But baptism is not an alternative salvation attempt. Baptism goes directly to the Savior through the Holy Spirit.

According to Romans 6, our burial of baptism unites us with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are baptized into Jesus, not baptized because of already being in Jesus.

According to Galatians 3, whoever was baptized into Christ Jesus has clothed himself with Christ, and is now a son of God.

You see, baptism does not nullify or deny the sacrifice of Jesus. It is the point at which we are brought into Christ, into the gospel of his life. Of course water does not wash away sins. Only the blood of Jesus can. When was the blood of Jesus shed? At his crucifixion. When are we united with his sacrifice? IN baptism.

[Guest hubertdorm]

Anyway Kevin,

I'm not knocking your position. If water baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant, it may be that redeemption is bestowed previous to immersion in the waters. This would certainly make it symbolic or a proclamation of.

Can we keep this topic user-friendly? I feel this is an important issue. I become frustrated when it becomes more who lied about what and how many times.

[JesusisGod2]

Hello Hubertdorm,

(JesusisGod2 @ Feb 18 2005, 12:26 PM)

 

Baptism is not what saves, the blood of Christ does. However, it does have  purpose. 

 

QUOTE

1 Peter 3:21 

 

21) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I have heard many commentary's on this verse, most saying that this is proof that baptism is not necessary for salvation and I agree.

The only verse in the Bible that reads, "baptism now saves you..." is the one that proves baptism does not save? We can debate here whether Peter is speaking of water or spirit (or both), but the scripture is clear that "baptism saves you." If you just read this verse without adding or removing any words, if you interpret it based on the words alone and not the doctrine taught, the scripture simply says that "baptism now saves you."

Again, whether Peter is referring to water baptism or not is what should be debated.

I may have not been as articulate in words, but I believe that we are saying the same thing here.

(JesusisGod2 @ Feb 18 2005, 12:26 PM)

In my opinion when one truley finds Jesus and have been born again, the water is something that they can't wait to have. 

But wait they must, if they are in attendance with a church group that doesn't exhibit an urgency towards baptism. These churches schedule baptisms once a month or even less frequently.

Again, there is no disagrement here, I was just putting emphasis on one should want to be baptised.

(JesusisGod2 @ Feb 18 2005, 12:26 PM)

Its not the baptism that saves, but the appeal to God for a clean conscience which only the blood can do, but this is not to say that baptism is something to take lightly or we can ignore.

I agree that the blood of Jesus, not water, washes away sin. So, when does the blood of Jesus cleanse? In baptism.

Actually if I am understanding you correctly, I must disagree. The blood cleanses at the moment of surrender to the Lord Jesus, not in baptism or let me clarify that not in water baptism.

(JesusisGod2 @ Feb 18 2005, 12:26 PM)

Now for some it is impossible to be baptised, such as those who are saved at their moment of death such as the theif on the cross or the death bed salvations that you have heard.

The thief's/robber's inability to be baptized had nothing to do with his unfortunate circumstances. Had both of his feet been planted on the ground, free of his death sentence, he still would not have been able to be baptized. This is because the gospel had not been fulfilled.

We are in agreement here, the theif was a bad example, I guess I was really after the death bed scenario.

According to Romans 6, our burial of baptism unites us with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are baptized into Jesus, not baptized because of already being in Jesus.

According to Galatians 3, whoever was baptized into Christ Jesus has clothed himself with Christ, and is now a son of God.

You see, baptism does not nullify or deny the sacrifice of Jesus. It is the point at which we are brought into Christ, into the gospel of his life. Of course water does not wash away sins. Only the blood of Jesus can. When was the blood of Jesus shed? At his crucifixion. When are we united with his sacrifice? IN baptism.

I agree and disagree depending on your view of what baptism is represented here. It is not water baptism that unites us with Jesus, but the baptism of the Spirit.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.

   

45) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

46) For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

   

47) "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Now according to the above verses, at what point in your opinion were they united with Jesus?

When they recieved the Spirit or when they were baptised in water?

[JesusisGod2]

Anyway Kevin,

I'm not knocking your position. If water baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant, it may be that redeemption is bestowed previous to immersion in the waters. This would certainly make it symbolic or a proclamation of.

Can we keep this topic user-friendly? I feel this is an important issue. I become frustrated when it becomes more who lied about what and how many times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Hubertdorm,

I must have missed this post earlier as I was replying to your response to my post , I am not sure what you are insuating by the statement highlited in red, care to elaborate on this?

I really dont see where anyone has lied about anything here on this thread, but instead have expressed their views, am I missing something here? feel free to send me a PM if you'd rather.

God bless

Kevin

[Guest hubertdorm]

Anyway Kevin,

I'm not knocking your position. If water baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant, it may be that redeemption is bestowed previous to immersion in the waters. This would certainly make it symbolic or a proclamation of.

Can we keep this topic user-friendly? I feel this is an important issue. I become frustrated when it becomes more who lied about what and how many times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Hubertdorm,

I must have missed this post earlier as I was replying to your response to my post , I am not sure what you are insuating by the statement highlited in red, care to elaborate on this?

I really dont see where anyone has lied about anything here on this thread, but instead have expressed their views, am I missing something here? feel free to send me a PM if you'd rather.

God bless

Kevin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't suggesting anything about your post Kevin. I just didn't want you to feel I was attacking you personally, and I'm not saying you or anyone on this topic has lied. But I've had trouble with other posters before on this subject. Just being careful.

[JesusisGod2]

Anyway Kevin,

I'm not knocking your position. If water baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant, it may be that redeemption is bestowed previous to immersion in the waters. This would certainly make it symbolic or a proclamation of.

Can we keep this topic user-friendly? I feel this is an important issue. I become frustrated when it becomes more who lied about what and how many times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Hubertdorm,

I must have missed this post earlier as I was replying to your response to my post , I am not sure what you are insuating by the statement highlited in red, care to elaborate on this?

I really dont see where anyone has lied about anything here on this thread, but instead have expressed their views, am I missing something here? feel free to send me a PM if you'd rather.

God bless

Kevin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't suggesting anything about your post Kevin. I just didn't want you to feel I was attacking you personally, and I'm not saying you or anyone on this topic has lied. But I've had trouble with other posters before on this subject. Just being careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Understood Brother,

Thanks for getting back and I appreciate your response. I realy didnt feel like I was being attacked personally, just didnt quite understand what you were saying.

And you are right, it is a very "touchy" or even "controversal" subject to some. I do look forward to your views.