"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

[e.r.m.]

I agree, it is true Paul opposed division and baptizing in the name of men, including his own. Nevertheless, he clearly stated he had baptized only a few. If baptism was required for salvation then Paul would have stated so and baptized many, many souls during his missionary years.

Unless, as he said, he didn't want people saying they were baptized in his name, which is just like he said. And the "few" comment referred only to these Corinthians. But does it matter? He said they were baptized so he still considered it important.

He also stated he was sent NOT BAPTIZE , but to preach the Gospel. This shows that water baptism has nothing to do with the Gospel or Salvation. If it did then Paul was certainly being amiss in his preaching and by not baptizing very many.

Of course, if someone is only looking for ways to debunk baptism's role in being saved, and is eagerly clinging to words that 'might' favor their belief system, they're only going to pick arguments out of the by grace alone, through faith alone cupboard, and are not going to notice things like
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and MANY of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
So what if Paul had Silas and Timothy from vs. 5 do the rest of the baptizing, after he did the preaching? Paul saw to it that these MANY Corinthians, that he was still talking to in 1 Corinthians 1, were baptized and they wouldn't have been baptized if Paul & co. hadn't talked about it. How can one miss this and just repeat the same tired old arguments, unless they're really only looking for a way to debunk baptism's role in being saved instead of really studying the matter?

In Romans 10:8-.13 Paul says “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”... without any mention of baptism to be saved.

As if every passage on salvation had to mention every element. That's not even true for belief Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 3:19, etc. It just has to be written in the New Testament somewhere, and it is. By this standard, why would you believe a baptism purpose of a public declaration of faith, that is not mentioned anywhere?

The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Spoken from the man who had believed and confessed Acts 22:8, 10 and was still in his sins three days later, for which baptism was then instructed Acts 22:16. Paul could not have been saying, and actually didn't say, belief and confession were all there was to it, knowing FULL WELL that it didn't happen that way with himself.

Paul and Silas say the same thing when then jailer asks...

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 16:30-31

Lo and behold! The account did not end in verse 31. There's actually more.
After the introduction of “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”, it goes on to say Acts 16:32-34 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. [33] And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Only after they had the word of the Lord spoken to them and were baptized, is it recorded that they had believed in God, as Paul and Silas had introduced in vs. 31.

Here is a good topic to study.
Cite the scriptures that speak of the purpose(s) of getting baptized in water in Jesus' name (which began after Jesus's resurrection and was not John's baptism).

 

[e.r.m.]

I certainly don’t deny that repentance is necessary for salvation, since it would only be reasonable to conclude that at the moment one places their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and for forgiveness of their sins, repentance is involved.

If they have been taught. I have heard of people who allegedly placed their faith in Jesus Christ without any concept of sin or remorse. And both John the Baptist & Jesus started their ministry with teaching repent and believe the good news and were very specific with repentance. It doesn't just come as a package deal.

Secondly, you're using "by grace alone, through faith alone" terminology or catchphrases specific to your belief system, which are not equal to scripture. In scripture, no one quote" placed their faith in Christ Jesus "as their savior", to be saved. The emphasis in Scripture was believing in who Jesus was, that God sent Jesus, and that God raised Him from the dead, to be saved. That was the expectation, that was the norm, and that was the verbiage.

While I consider baptism an important step of obedience for a believer in Jesus Christ,

The reason you consider baptism an important step of obedience, not possible that you've read it in the Bible because it doesn't exist in written scripture, but because in 1651 a group of churches came up with that idea.

The Faith and Practise of Thirty Congregations Gathered According to the Primitive Pattern

Published (in love) by consent of two from each Congregation, appointed for that purpose.

London, Printed by J. M. for Will. Larnar, at the Blackmore neer Fleet-bridge, 1651.

49. That when Baptisme is made known, or any other Action of obedience, then for men to refuse it, they are said to reject the counsel of God against themselves; Luk. 7. 30.

Up until that time, no one had ever conceived of baptism in Jesus's name as a mere act of obedience. It does not appear in the literature all throughout history until then. And certainly it was not spoken of in such a manner in the scriptures. This is the only reason you have come to consider baptism as "an important step of obedience." Everything Jesus commanded is to be obeyed, not just baptism, that baptism should be the only command to be stuck with the label "act/step of obedience". Sound doctrine starts with scripture first, not with lingo that belongs to a particular belief system and then working backward. It's a completely church-generated concept. A good study to do would be to cite all the scriptures in the New Testament that state the word baptism or baptize and state the purpose(s) for which to get baptized in Jesus's name (which began after Jesus's resurrection, and which is not John's baptism). Then you can see the written reasons for which the Bible tells us to get baptized.

there are other scriptures which show salvation is through faith in Christ alone.

Agreed, Acts 4:12. Alone also goes without saying, not that any believer in Christ who has read John 14:6 would also seek salvation through Muhammad or Hare Krishna.

Acts 2:38 is not the sole verse referencing salvation.

Correct, there is also Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and a slew of others. There are also the scriptures that talk about confessing Jesus as Lord for salvation, believing in Jesus for salvation, and repentance so that our may be wiped out. But why do you bring this up? Is it a menu that one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe and which scriptures to reject? "The scriptures list baptism and belief as parts of being saved, so I'm going to accept the belief part and reject the baptism part." Is that what you mean, and if so, is that how we are supposed to treat the scriptures that speak about being saved?

Is baptism necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Will read and comment separately.

 

[e.r.m.]

Do you really think Jesus cares if you get your hair wet? This whole debate makes no sense to me.

That would be based on what the Bible says about it. Jesus did expect baptism in Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:16. Would he says this about something he didn't care about?

 

[e.r.m.]

You’re forgetting that Jesus was mostly talking to Jews, whom were already favored by God, that is, recipients of God’s grace. Therefore, baptism was a response for them when they had come to this different perspective Jesus was teaching.

What do you mean baptism was a response for them?

And in the early proto-church, gentiles had to convert to Judaism before joining the church.

Not so. Some tried to get the gentiles to obey the law of Moses, but it was discovered and struck down in Acts 15.

So, in the Biblical understanding, one was baptized into Christ — not into a saved state.

They were baptized into Christ and into a saved state. Acts 2:38-39.

 

[e.r.m.]

InChrist,

Is baptism necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Terrible exegesis.
I cut out of this post the things I already covered above. No need to repeat.

The belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is also known as "baptismal regeneration."

No it's not. It's a negative label used by the naysayers. It's not an official or accurate term.

Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4 declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The action of being immersed in the water illustrates dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

"Illustrates", "identification", "pictures", all terms used by the commentator, not by Paul in what he wrote. Paul used the term "were". The commentator thinks he could sneak these terms in and pass them off as Paul's. Paul did not say what the commentator said.

Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation.

All "by grace alone, through faith alone" language and catchphrases. Not a single scripture.

Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Of course.

Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9).

The commentator takes it upon himself to think he can add "alone" to these scriptures that don't say faith alone, NO scripture does.

Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.

Since he's basing his conclusion on things he himself has added to scripture on multiple occasions, then he has no argument.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Because they are actually written, unlike the absence of any such verse stating baptism as "an important step of obedience".

However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses.

Again basing it on his own "alone" additions.

Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.

All opinion, no scripture.

Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mention of baptism?

The initial presentation of the gospel didn't lack a mention of baptism to this group. Acts 18:8.

 

[e.r.m.]

DNB,

Sorry COC, you are reading way too much into the texts. There are only two passages in Acts where water is explicitly stated as used in Baptism: Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch. All the rest, you assumed that baptism means water.

In one of those, the one with Cornelius, Peter established that baptism in Jesus's name is in water Acts 10:47-48. So, Acts 2:38-39 baptism in Jesus's name, also taught by Peter, is in water. Which means baptism in Matthew 28:19 and in its counterpart Mark 16:16 is in water. Baptism in Acts 19:5 is in water. Obviously, Acts 8 with the eunuch was in water.
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
The answer is a resounding no, they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So the Corinthians mentioned here and in Acts 18:8 were baptized in water. Acts 9:18-19 this is not how someone being baptized in the Holy Spirit is described, this is how someone being baptized in water is described. Romans 6:3-7, in vs 5 so there is a likeness between this baptism and Jesus's death. There is a likeness between baptism in water and Jesus a death car being buried with him in baptism. There is no likeness between baptism with the Holy Spirit and Jesus's death. And since in Matthew 28:19, which is baptism in water, Jesus says to baptized all those they make disciples of, and since in Acts 2:38-39 Peter includes
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Then there's plenty of precedence to take as a general rule, that when baptism is mentioned, they are referring to the baptism commanded in the Great Commission, which Peter echoed on the day of Pentecost.

The verses that I showed was enough to elucidate the fact that there were more than one type of baptisms.

Agreed, but the baptism obeyed from the great commission is by far the most common.

Water baptism is not required for salvation, you also read into the text that it was - the examples of water baptism were descriptive, not prescriptive.

Acts 2:38 is not prescriptive?

You were egregiously incorrect by stating that both Acts 19:3-6 and Ephesians 4:4-6 denote any usage or implication, of water in the intent of the author.

She was totally correct at least with Acts 19 for the reason stated above.

 

[pearl]

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,"

The powerful symbol of water. it has the destructive power of death, and power of life giving.

 

[e.r.m.]

So are saying you believe in baptismal regeneration?

We don't believe in baptismal regeneration. That's a term you guys come up with. Baptismal regeneration says that it is baptism itself that regenerates, where instead it is God who regenerates, when He sees the expected response for what He has done for us.

Do you believe that a person is not saved by faith/ belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but that they must be baptized to actually have salvation?

It doesn't matter if we believe it or not. What matters is what the Bible says about it. The Bible, in a number of places, includes baptism as a part of being saved Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, etc. The Bible says a person is saved by faith/belief in Jesus Christ. The Bible does not say that a person is saved only by their faith/belief in Jesus Christ.

I don’t see any examples in the scriptures of Jesus baptizing anyone, at all. Though He did say...

...that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:15

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

..Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. John 6:47

The Great Commission started after he his resurrection, just before he went up to heaven. Do you think citing some scriptures that don't mention baptism can erase the scriptures that do?

 

[InChrist]

We don't believe in baptismal regeneration. That's a term you guys come up with. Baptismal regeneration says that it is baptism itself that regenerates, where instead it is God who regenerates, when He sees the expected response for what He has done for us.

It doesn't matter if we believe it or not. What matters is what the Bible says about it. The Bible, in a number of places, includes baptism as a part of being saved Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, etc. The Bible says a person is saved by faith/belief in Jesus Christ. The Bible does not say that a person is saved only by their faith/belief in Jesus Christ.

The Great Commission started after he his resurrection, just before he went up to heaven. Do you think citing some scriptures that don't mention baptism can erase the scriptures that do?

Thanks you for sharing your beliefs. I am glad to hear you don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. I am baptized and I believe baptism is a very important step of obedience in following the Lord Jesus Christ. My main concern with your perspective, which I think is contrary to the Bible, is that you seem to be saying faith in Christ... “plus baptism” is necessary for salvation. Where does that leave someone who places their faith in Jesus, but can’t be baptized? There are those who believe in Jesus just before they die; maybe in a hospital or nursing home, a car accident or in a war situation. They cannot get baptized. There are those in persecution situations, prisons, consecration camps, or other circumstances where being baptized is impossible, yet they may call out to Jesus for forgiveness and salvation. What about them? What about the thief on the cross next to Jesus? He had no opportunity to be baptized, yet Jesus said he would enter paradise.

 

[e.r.m.]

Thanks you for sharing your beliefs. I am glad to hear you don’t believe in baptismal regeneration.

Thank you. None of us do. That is an outside accusation. That doesn't come from us.

I am baptized and I believe baptism is a very important step of obedience in following the Lord Jesus Christ.

I hope you read my post on why you believe baptism is a very important step of obedience. You can't tell me you've ever read it in the Bible.

My main concern with your perspective, which I think is contrary to the Bible,

It is not contrary to any written text in the Bible. It is contrary to the commentaries about and additions to the scriptures by the "by grace alone, through faith alone" community, such as adding "alone" to John 3:16 & Ephesians 2:8-10. You are welcome to look for any written text in the New Testament that itself states (and not just alludes to in the eye of the beholder) something in opposition to what I have espoused in my posts.

is that you seem to be saying faith in Christ... “plus baptism” is necessary for salvation.

If we are going to discuss what is Biblical and what is not, then “plus baptism” is not admissible. We are not subject or under obligation to answer to "by grace alone, through faith alone" catchphrases. Such phrases are not a standard to judge anything by, only God's word is. God's word doesn't say faith in Christ... “plus baptism”. God's word says
Mark 16:16 He who has believed AND (not plus) has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
What we teach agrees with scripture.
(I'm aware of the Mark 16:16b argument. For now I'm just answering what you posted here).

Where does that leave someone who places their faith in Jesus, but can’t be baptized? There are those who believe in Jesus just before they die; maybe in a hospital or nursing home, a car accident or in a war situation. They cannot get baptized. There are those in persecution situations, prisons, consecration camps, or other circumstances where being baptized is impossible, yet they may call out to Jesus for forgiveness and salvation. What about them?

I believe part of this question comes from the conditioning that once a person has believed that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus died for our sins, and that God has raised Jesus from the dead that he/she is already saved, and that anything beyond that is "extra", or as you describe it, "plus". To "by grace alone, through faith alone" adherents, this is visceral. Even if they were irrevocably and inescapably convinced from scripture that baptism is involved in being saved. Even if they ran out of escape routes and had to concede to the fact, they may still have to deal with the emotions that the scripture doesn't match with what they feel inside, due to this deep conditioning. I suspect this question comes partly from that conditioned feeling. To those who have no problem, as with the crowd at Pentecost, with Peter's explicit inclusion of baptism in Jesus's name in the forgiveness of sins, we don't "look" for obstacles and then say scripture can't be true because we were trying really hard to find a loophole. Scripture comes first, and other things work around scripture. Circumstances don't invalidate scripture. Peter tried that
John 21:19-21 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!" [20] Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" [21] So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"

and look at Jesus's response.

John 21:22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"

What about those who die just before they believe in Jesus?, maybe in a hospital or nursing home, a car accident or in a war situation. There are those in persecution situations, prisons, or other circumstances, like in ancient Rome. (What's a consecration camp?) The difference is when you believe salvation happens. What if all such situations happen before they get a chance to believe in Jesus, or it's "impossible" for someone to reach them to share the gospel. Would you feel this was unjust? All your obstacles were construed against baptism, only because you already believe a person is saved at the moment of belief. If a person didn't believe Romans 10:9-10, about confessing with our mouth the Lord Jesus, they'd come up with obstacles for that. "What if they're mute, or in a dangerous situation where they can't talk?" One can either look for ways to "make" God's word not true, or we can look for ways to give that person a chance, to sneak a Bible & a letter into that unfavorable circumstance and trust that God is in control. I knew someone who baptized an inmate in prison. This is not a question of God's word, but of conditioning/a mindset.

What about the thief on the cross next to Jesus? He had no opportunity to be baptized, yet Jesus said he would enter paradise.

Does the "by grace alone, through faith alone" system teach the Bible or just the framework of its belief system on salvation and baptism? What answers have you received from others to whom you have posed this question? I can't imagine I'm the first one, as the thief on the cross is the OLDEST debunked argument of all time. PLEASE do a study as to the timing of the great commission and the thief. Why hasn't your church taught our answer to that? Why hasn't you church taught about Hebrews 9:16-18? Why hasn't your church taught that Zaccheus, the paralytic, the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, also weren't baptized? Why hasn't you church taught about Luke 5:24? Why haven't they taught a comprehensive lesson on the thief, or instructed you to do your own study? Why does the extent of their teaching on this matter only go so far as posing the question "What about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized". I believe it's because their emphasis on this matter is not really teaching you the Bible, but teaching their paradigm. Don't dig too deep.

Please bear in mind that text sometimes sounds more aggressive than how it would sound in person. I respect you and your kindness and I intend the same. God bless.

 

[metis]

The Reformation restored believer's baptism

Only a minority of Protestant denominations did that.

 

[metis]

Some seem to conveniently forget that what Jesus' Two Commandments are but substituting what are basically "side-bars" as some sort of litmus test as to whom are the "true Christians" or even which is the "true Church" as supposedly being essential for salvation. Not only does the Sermon On the Mount clarify what our direction should be but also so does the Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matthew 25].

 

[e.r.m.]

Only a minority of Protestant denominations did that.

True, but it was the minority of Protestants who restored it.

 

[InChrist]

Thank you. None of us do. That is an outside accusation. That doesn't come from us.

I hope you read my post on why you believe baptism is a very important step of obedience. You can't tell me you've ever read it in the Bible.

It is not contrary to any written text in the Bible. It is contrary to the commentaries about and additions to the scriptures by the "by grace alone, through faith alone" community, such as adding "alone" to John 3:16 & Ephesians 2:8-10. You are welcome to look for any written text in the New Testament that itself states (and not just alludes to in the eye of the beholder) something in opposition to what I have espoused in my posts.

If we are going to discuss what is Biblical and what is not, then “plus baptism” is not admissible. We are not subject or under obligation to answer to "by grace alone, through faith alone" catchphrases. Such phrases are not a standard to judge anything by, only God's word is. God's word doesn't say faith in Christ... “plus baptism”. God's word says
Mark 16:16 He who has believed AND (not plus) has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
What we teach agrees with scripture.
(I'm aware of the Mark 16:16b argument. For now I'm just answering what you posted here).

Part of this question comes from the conditioning that once a person has believed that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus died for our sins, and that God has raised Jesus from the dead that he/she is already saved, and that anything beyond that is "extra", or as you describe it, "plus". To "by grace alone, through faith alone" adherents, this is visceral. Even if they were irrevocably and inescapably convinced from scripture that baptism is involved in being saved. Even if they ran out of escape routes and had to concede to the fact, they may still have to deal with the emotions that the scripture doesn't match with what they feel inside, due to this deep conditioning. I suspect this question comes partly from that conditioned feeling. To those who have no problem, as with the crowd at Pentecost, with Peter's explicit inclusion of baptism in Jesus's name in the forgiveness of sins, we don't "look" for obstacles and then say scripture can't be true because we were trying really hard to find a loophole. Scripture comes first, and other things work around scripture. Circumstances don't invalidate scripture. Peter tried that
John 21:19-21 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!" [20] Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" [21] So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"

and look at Jesus's response.

John 21:22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"

What about those who die just before they believe in Jesus?, maybe in a hospital or nursing home, a car accident or in a war situation. There are those in persecution situations, prisons, or other circumstances, like in ancient Rome. (What's a consecration camp?) The difference is when you believe salvation happens. What if all such situations happen before they get a chance to believe in Jesus, or it's "impossible" for someone to reach them to share the gospel. Would you feel this was unjust? All your obstacles were construed against baptism, only because you already believe a person is saved at the moment of belief. If a person didn't believe Romans 10:9-10, about confessing with our mouth the Lord Jesus, they'd come up with obstacles for that. "What if they're mute, or in a dangerous situation where they can't talk?" One can either look for ways to "make" God's word not true, or we can look for ways to give that person a chance, to sneak a Bible & a letter into that unfavorable circumstance and trust that God is in control. I knew someone who baptized an inmate in prison. This is not a question of God's word, but of conditioning/a mindset.

Does the "by grace alone, through faith alone" system teach the Bible or just the framework of its belief system on salvation and baptism? What answers have you received from others to whom you have posed this question? I can't imagine I'm the first one, as the thief on the cross is the OLDEST debunked argument of all time. PLEASE do a study as to the timing of the great commission and the thief. Why hasn't your church taught our answer to that? Why hasn't you church taught about Hebrews 9:16-18. Why hasn't your church taught that Zaccheus, the paralytic, the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, also weren't baptized? Why haven't they taught a comprehensive lesson on the thief, or instructed you to do your own study. Why does the extent of their teaching on this matter only go so far as posing the question "What about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized". I believe it's because their emphasis on this matter is not really teaching you the Bible, but teaching their paradigm. Don't dig too deep.

Please bear in mind that text sometimes sounds more aggressive than how it would sound in person. I respect you and your kindness and I intend the same. God bless.

I am not sure how some of the verses you listed, such as John 21:19-22 or Hebrews 9:16-18 have any application to or support the necessity of baptism for salvation.
The churches I have attended teach the Bible expository style, meaning the pastor goes through one book, verse by verse, teaching in context. By doing this form of study, rather than topical, verses are not pulled out of their context here and there to create aberrant doctrines.

If you do not believe that baptism is connected to regeneration or the moment one is born again to new life in Christ, then what exactly do you believe? I don’t find your posts very clear.

All I know is that I was saved by Jesus Christ out of religion: Catholicism, Mormonism, another deviant cult group, new age and the occult...saved and delivered from darkness the moment I believed and trusted Jesus as my Savior...
(He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13-14).
I knew I was different, everything about life was new and different
(1 John 5:13;20).
Not only me, my husband was saved and born again the same day, at home alone, by Christ alone. No church, no pastor. Two weeks later, after much prayer, we shared our new faith in Jesus with a former friend who had become an enemy. We were not actually on speaking terms, but God opened an opportunity. Three days later he came by our house, walked in and started crying as he told us he had trusted Jesus as his Savior for forgiveness and eternal life.
Later we did start going to a Bible church and shared what happened with the pastor. We were baptized, over 2 months afterwards. Our former enemy, now friend again and brother in Christ was also baptized at the same time. Would you say we were not really saved or born again until we were baptized, over two months after trusting Jesus as our Savior?


“When Paul reminded the Corinthians of the essential ingredients of the gospel which he preached and by which they had been saved, he made no mention of baptism (1 Cor:15:1-4). In fact, he distinguished between the gospel and baptism: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor:1:17). He hadn't baptized most of the Corinthians, couldn't remember whom he had baptized, and was thankful that it had been very few (1 Cor:1:14-16)—a strange attitude if baptism is essential to salvation! Yet without baptizing them, Paul declared that he was their father in the faith: "in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"
(1 Cor:4:15).

Then what about Mark:16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel: "t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor:1:21; see also Jn:3:16,18,36; 5:24; Acts:10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Rom:1:16; 3:28; 4:24; 5:1; 1 Cor.:15:1-4; Eph:2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.


Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.), to whom Christian baptism was unknown.”


Baptismal Regeneration?

 

[e.r.m.]

I am not sure how some of the verses you listed, such as John 21:19-22 or Hebrews 9:16-18 have any application to or support the necessity of baptism for salvation.
The churches I have attended teach the Bible expository style, meaning the pastor goes through one book, verse by verse, teaching in context. By doing this form of study, rather than topical, verses are not pulled out of their context here and there to create aberrant doctrines.

If you do not believe that baptism is connected to regeneration or the moment one is born again to new life in Christ, then what exactly do you believe? I don’t find your posts very clear.

All I know is that I was saved by Jesus Christ out of religion: Catholicism, Mormonism, another deviant cult group, new age and the occult...saved and delivered from darkness the moment I believed and trusted Jesus as my Savior...
(He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13-14).
I knew I was different, everything about life was new and different
(1 John 5:13;20).
Not only me, my husband was saved and born again the same day, at home alone, by Christ alone. No church, no pastor. Two weeks later, after much prayer, we shared our new faith in Jesus with a former friend who had become an enemy. We were not actually on speaking terms, but God opened an opportunity. Three days later he came by our house, walked in and started crying as he told us he had trusted Jesus as his Savior for forgiveness and eternal life.
Later we did start going to a Bible church and shared what happened with the pastor. We were baptized, over 2 months afterwards. Our former enemy, now friend again and brother in Christ was also baptized at the same time. Would you say we were not really saved or born again until we were baptized, over two months after trusting Jesus as our Savior?


“When Paul reminded the Corinthians of the essential ingredients of the gospel which he preached and by which they had been saved, he made no mention of baptism (1 Cor:15:1-4). In fact, he distinguished between the gospel and baptism: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor:1:17). He hadn't baptized most of the Corinthians, couldn't remember whom he had baptized, and was thankful that it had been very few (1 Cor:1:14-16)—a strange attitude if baptism is essential to salvation! Yet without baptizing them, Paul declared that he was their father in the faith: "in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"
(1 Cor:4:15).

Then what about Mark:16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel: "t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor:1:21; see also Jn:3:16,18,36; 5:24; Acts:10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Rom:1:16; 3:28; 4:24; 5:1; 1 Cor.:15:1-4; Eph:2:8, etc.). Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.


Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.), to whom Christian baptism was unknown.”


Baptismal Regeneration?

My pocket of time has expired for now. I will try to get back to you this week

 

[metis]

True, but it was the minority of Protestants who restored it.

Or returned to using it as the norm.

 

[e.r.m.]

Or returned to using it as the norm.

Sure.

 

[e.r.m.]

To portray blacks as somehow being so naive so as to not recognize which party tends to be more consistent with their own values as we've seen for many decades now is in and of itself is "racism". It's like "They're too dumb to know what's good for them!".

I think you made a sharp turn from another discussion into the wrong thread.

 

[metis]

I think you made a sharp turn from another discussion into the wrong thread.

You are correct, so thanks for this and I'll delete the other one right after this.

 

[InChrist]

My pocket of time has expired for now. I will try to get back to you this week

Okay, no hurry and have a good week. In the meantime you may find this interesting...


“Similarly, Peter says that baptism now saves us. You see, Jesus was saved. The Father took him out of Hell. "And," Peter says, "corresponding to that, baptism now saves you . . . " This is not a reference to the rite of water baptism. "Baptized" means "placed into." Water baptism is a symbol of being placed into Christ -- into his death, burial, and resurrection. Peter says that the reality of this symbol is our identification with Christ When we trust him as our Lord and Savior, we are placed into his death, his burial, his resurrection, and we ascend with hi so that we are "seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus," and nothing can harm us! Not the hassles of the present nor the habits of the past. Because, you see, dead men have severed their ties with the past. Sin cannot dominate them. Peter says that baptism, our identification with Christ, causes us to go through precisely what Christ went through, and we are raised - as he was raised, to a brand-new life.”

Dead Men Don't Sin