Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[KWSS1976]

Just google it "Do I have to to be baptised to be saved" I love me some Google..LOL

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Just google it "Do I have to to be baptised to be saved" I love me some Google..LOL

Thanks, you solved my dilemma--

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/baptism.htm

[clgustaveson]

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

[KWSS1976]

Hey I will not tell you the bible is not confusing..LOL

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

What is your belief?

I am just looking for logic amongst unsupported assumptions... I used to believe it was a requirement but lately I just don't see the evidence. So, I am looking to see evidence for either side, but both sides seem to be unsupported...

INO, there is not enough information available to make it "fact" either way. I agree - the evidence is not there to make it a requirement. That being said - I wouldn't risk it.

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

INO, there is not enough information available to make it "fact" either way. I agree - the evidence is not there to make it a requirement. That being said - I wouldn't risk it.

If we were to live our lives by the "better safe than sorry" philosophy we would be wasting our time... Why would a requirement of salvation, something that should be clear, be so hard to find?

I am starting to fall on the side of the camp that believe it is not a requirement... while I am not a fan of symbolism or legalism I still see its relative importance in the church... but I still don't see where it is a stipulation of salvation.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There have been many who were bound by religious traditions down through the ages who experienced the Holy Ghost baptism. Catholics often called this "ecstasy". It wasn't uncommon for individuals who experienced this to speak with tongues, see visions, have angelic visitations, etc. Most had a very limited or a traditionalized view of Scripture. (I assure you that you also have a very traditioanlized and Catholic practice in your own faith where the light of full Apostolic truth hasn't shown.) However, their hearts were seeking God through Christ Jesus the only way they knew. Perhaps most of them were baptized in titles, but in most cases they were baptized as a result of their desire to be obedient to Scripture.

I would agree that the Apostolic formula for water baptism is in the singular name of Jesus Christ. However, baptism ISN'T a magic ritual where the words have to be just right. It is more the disposition of the individual's heart than the words uttered that makes baptism effectual.

So one has to ask...

Does God judge the heart or the Sacrament?

Some have taken historical references to folks who experienced the gifts of the Spirit and/or those who rejected Church/State baptism and claim that they "prove" that there have always been Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

Oh, but this scripture from that site caught my eye 1 Corinthians 1:12-17 why would Paul proclaim he wasn't sent to baptize, only to preach if Baptism is essential to salvation why wouldn't Paul offer a full service salvation plan?

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by Sam

For a couple of reasons:
1. Jewish people were often baptized under a rabbi's ministry. Jewish baptism was a self-immersion three times in water and was "witnessed" by a rabbi or his designee. Jewish baptism was called a "mikveh." Those who underwent the mikveh "cleansing" were said to have been baptized in the name of their rabbi. Paul did not want people dividing up around leaders/teachers/preachers/rabbis so he did not make a big deal about baptism. As was the custom in the early church, converts were immersed (or they self-immersed) right after conversion. This is seen in early New Testament records in the Book of Acts. So, folks did get baptized under the ministry of Paul but he did not want his name associated with their baptism. He wanted them to be devoted to Jesus instead of to a particular church or leader. So, they were said to have been baptized "in the name of Jesus the Messiah" instead of in the name of a leader/teacher/pastor/etc.

2. Paul considered it his calling and primary goal to preach salvation/deliverance. Water baptism was an important ritual carried over from Judaism, through Rabbi John the Baptist and then through Rabbi Jesus and then incorporated in the early church, but was secondary in importance to salvation/conversion which was by faith.

What is your point?

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

If we were to live our lives by the "better safe than sorry" philosophy we would be wasting our time... Why would a requirement of salvation, something that should be clear, be so hard to find?

I generally agree with you, but not in this case.