Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Adino

So, will you agree that the actual remission of sins and to personally experience that remission of sins are two very separate and distinct events which happen at two very separate and distinct times? Yes or No?

If sins were entirely already remitted at the cross, no one needs to obey the Gospel to be saved rather they "experienced" that remission or not. What Christ accomplished at the cross was opening the door by fulfilling the law of atonement for mankind. It is up to us if we enter into that door and receive salvation. One enters that door through repentance and water baptism, God fills them with the Holy Ghost as a gift.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Adino

More Scripture to think about:

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2Corinthians 5:18-19)

Do these passages teach a finished reconciliation at Calvary in the eyes of God?

Do these passages teach that God has committed to us the job of spreading the Good News of this reconciliation?

Take into consideration that the church in Rome and the church in Corinth were already obedient to the Gospel, meaning they were already baptized (Romans 6:3; I Corinthians 1:13-16). All of the Epistles were written to obedient saints, therefore ever promise and exposition delivered to them only applies to obedient saints.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'll launch into a hot button issue...

I believe that water baptism is absolutely essential for Christian salvation. However, I'm partial to pouring as a mode of baptism. I'm not wanting to debate this here but I'll give you a link to a site that addresses some of the reasons why I believe this (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/r...%20Baptism.htm). While I don't entirely agree with this person on every point, I believe he adequately explains why effusion is at the very least an equally valid mode of baptism.

Now to the main point of this post...

I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula.

That's right, I don't believe in the "Jesus Name" formula. However, I also don't believe in the Trinitarian formula. In fact, I don't believe that one can biblically establish a baptismal "formula" from Scripture. In addition, I believe that to establish a set "formula" is to sacramentalize baptism and negate baptism's true biblical blessing. In Apostolic churches throughout the world a formula such as,

"According to the profession of your faith, I hereby baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins."

..., or some such formula. I believe that this isn't biblical.

I believe that it is the convert who is to call on the name of Jesus Christ at their water baptism, not a religious official. That negates baptism even having a said "formula".

I just thought I'd drop that one your way here guys.

Wow, Aquila, you've really stepped on some toes and kicked some sacred cows in that post.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Adino

It is said reconciliation "describes the end of the estrangement, caused by sin, between God and humanity."

2Corinthians 5:18-21

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Prior to the Cross God and man stood back to back.

The Cross reconciled the world unto God by remitting their sins. God now stands facing man who has his back to God unaware that God has removed their sins, i.e., the cause of estrangement.

We've been given the Good News of the reconciliation of the Cross and are to inform all men that God, who now stands facing him with open arms, has removed all cause of estrangement.

Man is to 'be reconciled to God' by turning to God through faith in the Gospel (Good News) of reconciliation which happened on the Cross.

God and man who once stood back to back now stand in face to face fellowship...... all due to the reconciliation of the Cross.

Seems to me like a good way to put it

[Sam]

A note in the margin of my Bible at Jeremiah chapter 31 says:

The New Covenant is a "gift certificate" for salvation. The merchandise is not free. Someone paid the price. We just go to the store and claim the purchased item.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

Wow, Aquila, you've really stepped on some toes and kicked some sacred cows in that post.

NOT sacred cows but truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The man is a Presbyterian or Mehtodist NOT Apostolic in any sense of the word.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Take into consideration that the church in Rome and the church in Corinth were already obedient to the Gospel, meaning they were already baptized (Romans 6:3; I Corinthians 1:13-16). All of the Epistles were written to obedient saints, therefore ever promise and exposition delivered to them only applies to obedient saints.

Cannot leave without addressing this fallacy, Bro. If all Oneness preachers will from this moment on cease teaching their view of Acts 2:38 and John 3:5 to their already saved congregations then maybe this position would have more merit. There is a reason it continues to be taught. That reason is to safeguard the message.

There is no doubt the Gospel message permeates the epistles. In fact, it is delved into more deeply in the epistles than it is anywhere else in Scripture. This was done in order to ensure that is was safeguarded against extreme gnostic and/or pagan views trying to creep into the 1st century Church and corrupt its purity.

I'll give you the last word on this, because I want to address your thoughts on John 3:5.

[Adino]

Aquila wrote:

Jesus said, unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus then asks how a man can be born again (thinking physical birth). Jesus then says that a man (anthropos, an adult person) must be born of water AND (implying two elements) Spirit.

I take issue with your automatic assumption that two elements are implied. There is but one article in the phrase "born of water and of the Spirit." This single article connects only to the word "Spirit" and indicates that the preceding word, 'water,' has a close connection to the articled word 'Spirit.'

If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth of the Spirit.

John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

When we allow the author to define his own terms and allow his consistent use of 'water' as a spiritual metaphor we can see that John is placing double emphasis on THE spiritual rebirth.

Btw, I agree the immediately following words in verse 6 underscore that the flesh is born of the flesh and that man's spirit is born of the Spirit. But, that you then jump to the tongues issue using John 3:8 really calls your interpretation into question. It is extremely apparent that to force the doctrine of evidential tongues into this passage is purely eisegetical in nature and without proper textual consideration.

Concerning Mark 16:16-17 and Matthew 28:19....

I don't see how these passages support your point at all. Especially since the command to baptize was given to disciples of Christ to be performed on those who had been discipled. Neither of these verses indicate that baptism was to be understood as necessary for the new birth.

In fact, Christ himself only baptized those who had become his disciples.

John 4:1

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John

Christ first made disciples and then baptized those disciples.

Christ only baptized Christians!

This is precisely what Christ taught to do in Matthew 28:19

Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (CEV)

We are commanded to baptize Christians! Only those who are FIRST Christians are to be baptized!

I will give you the last word here as well. God bless, friend. It has been nice chatting with you.

[Adino]

I'll let you guys take it from here. Thanks again for the chat, everyone. God bless!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

NOT sacred cows but truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The man is a Presbyterian or Mehtodist NOT Apostolic in any sense of the word.

Well...

Bro. Eply, with all due respects... the majority of "washings" (baptismos), also translated "baptisms" throughout the OT were by pouring and sprinkling. Presbyterians acknowledge this to their credit... however, Presbyterians are painfully trapped in the error of the Trinity. I'm not a Presbyterian by any stretch of the imagination.

As for no baptismal formula... can you find a single "formula" uttered by an Apostle in the NT?

We do find what Ananias told Paul...

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Ananias didn't say, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, with me calling the name of Jesus over you." It was PAUL who was told to invoke the name of Jesus at his baptism. You might think you have the power of a Catholic priest to use the name to remit sins... but that's not how it was used. In the NT Church remission was brought about by the one being baptized calling on the name of the Lord. Or else Paul's baptism was ineffectual. You could utter the name of Larry, Moe, and Curly over a person... but God will still remit their sin if THEY are crying out to the power of the name of Jesus. You have to understand... it's not about YOU. You're not saving a person. It's about THEM and THEIR calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The truth is... most MODERN "Apostolics" are not Apostolic. They're United Pentecostal... and they worship at the altars of United Pentecostalism or some other MODERN Pentecostal organization. They neglect to see that much of modern Pentecost has NOTHING to do with what the Church of the Bible was actually about.

Bro. Eply, you're an older saint of God who has embraced the old wineskin paradigm of what "church" is. You're largely happy and set in your ways convinced that the Apostles did everything the way UPCI does it. That's very endearing... but it's not true. The Apostles did things VASTLY different than what modern Apostolic churches are doing. Some of us are breaking free from the old wineskin to seek the Lord, studying His Word, wishing to do church EXACTLY like they did it. I understand that you like and love things they way they are. You're pretty much set in your ways. I respect that. If you're happy with "Church inc." please, be happy in it. But don't begrudge us looking for something deeper, more intimate, and more fulfilling than what's become bang clang spectator Pentecost.

Please don't fault us for that.