Is baptism essential unto salvation? - Page 3

clgustaveson · #21 06-01-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light

Yes Baptism is a commandment not a suggestion.

Those that reject it will go to hell.

Those that use the titles in baptism will go to hell.

Nothing to discuss.

Why? Where is this commandment that we need to be baptized?

I only see a commandment that we should go forth and baptize people... where is there a commandment that we should be baptized to go to heaven?

Mind I am just seeking answers, not trying to choose a side here....

clgustaveson · #22 06-01-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

I just want to know how the water washes sins away thats given more power to the water then Jesus I think we should do it to be symbolic but other then that....but we already beat this horse to death..LOL

Who said it has more power? I mean if it does provide a cleansing of sin then that is because of Jesus, not in spite of him.

KWSS1976 · #23 06-01-2009, 10:59 AM

Thats what I am saying people that say you have to be baptised to be saved if that is the case they are saying the water phsically removes the sin and we all know that cannot be cause that is Gods job...

Tell_Sackett · #24 06-01-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

Ok, before I make any statements, I am sure this has been hashed out many times on this forum. I don't simply want to reread other discussions, so please humor me...

Is baptism essential to be saved? This isn't a question of whether baptism in Jesus name is essential, so lets not turn this into a massive debate on Jesus name or FSHG... I just want to know if baptism is essential...

Colossians 2 compares water baptism for NT believers to OT circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith (i.e. his belief in God's word). Since God then commanded him to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, however, his refusal to obey God's command would have resulted in loss of "salvation," or being cut off from the covenant (Gen 17).

If you follow this logic with baptism, we are saved through faith/belief alone, but failure to obey God's word and be baptized results in being cut off from the family.

Short answer - yes, baptism is essential for salvation (but salvation doesn't occur at baptism).

Michael The Disciple · #25 06-01-2009, 02:12 PM

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

I say yes its part of the full salvation plan.

Jermyn Davidson · #26 06-01-2009, 02:26 PM

One does not get baptized to get saved, but because you are saved.

However, it grieves me that there are folks who have been deceived into thinking that they don't have to be baptized.

I compare it to the guy who was in the highway and hedges who was beckoned to come to the wedding after the original invitees rejected their invitations.

The guy showed up-- but he didn't have the right clothes on. He was cast out of the wedding feast, if I'm not mistaken.

It's the attitude of the person getting baptized that I address when I say, "No, you don't get baptized to get saved", but indeed, as a person who is saved, we must obey the scriptures.

Water Baptism by full immersion, with the invocation of the Name of Jesus, is CLEARLY A BIBLICAL COMMAND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED UNTO SALVATION!

missourimary · #27 06-01-2009, 03:55 PM

It is the will and plan of God for us to be baptized. As to essential for salvation or not, I leave that in God's hands. If there is a time that someone has a heart attack on their way to getting baptized, I don't think they will be precluded from Heaven because they had a heart attack, but I also don't believe God would let someone be struck dead on their way to church to be baptized. Never heard of it, anyway. (thanks, but don't want to, either. Please let me continue in my ignorance on this one.

)

For direction, Mark 16:18, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:44-45... and Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized-no "if you want to" stuff. But they got baptized because they were sincere believers, not to "get saved" or to stay out of Hell.

Hoovie · #28 06-01-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

Can someone please show any scripture that might hint that not being baptized will send a person to HELL? I don't want concrete proof I just want something to try to base this doctrine on.

All Christians get baptised. Jesus commanded it, the Apostles commanded it, and those who came to repentance were baptized. When one is in Christ he desires to do His will. It's that simple really.

I see no exceptions.

Hoovie · #29 06-01-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

So are you saying it is a requirement for salvation?

I am saying all new believers WILL be baptised. It is the first action (or at least one of the first actions) that is manifest in a new believer's life.

Do I question the faith of a believer who rejects baptism in an ongoing fashion? Yes - the same as I would question his faith if he continued living in obvious sin without repentance or remorse.

clgustaveson · #30 06-01-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tell_Sackett

Colossians 2 compares water baptism for NT believers to OT circumcision. Abraham was justified by faith (i.e. his belief in God's word). Since God then commanded him to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, however, his refusal to obey God's command would have resulted in loss of "salvation," or being cut off from the covenant (Gen 17).

If you follow this logic with baptism, we are saved through faith/belief alone, but failure to obey God's word and be baptized results in being cut off from the family.

Short answer - yes, baptism is essential for salvation (but salvation doesn't occur at baptism).

I see your logic, but I don't feel that it is valid enough... why would something so important be left to such an ideological comparison that it takes assumptions beyond what I am willing to make?

As I said, I am not trying to pick sides but to play the skeptic here and search for harder evidence I don't think this scripture is proof enough to assume that without an ideological circumcision or in a sense devoid of the common mark of baptism, I am not saved. Now, this scripture seems to make more sense than most I have seen but I still don't find it concrete enough to assume hell on millions of people...

Circumcision in itself is not creating a "cleaner" individual... God made man, and it was good... why would the cutting off of a foreskin make man any better in God's sight?

Was Moses family damned or "cut-off" because he didn't practice circumcision? (Joshua 5: 4-7) Then Moses passed this ancient custom to the people...

Jesus also compares circumcision to his own healing, so is it a requirement that every man receive physical healing from Jesus?

I mean, I need answers, I would prefer to see the facts, leave the opinions to the wayside...