Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[Adino]

Steve and Growing,

1) Do you both agree the sins imputed to Christ were historically remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection?

and....

2) Do you both agree that once remitted those sins needn't be 'remitted again?'

Everyone, once we all agree that no sins are remitted in baptism we can move on to what it means to 'receive' the historic remission of the Cross.

I will contend that the only perception which changes concerning our sin is our own and not God's. The only thing that changes after the event of the Cross is how our heart comes to terms with its effectiveness. It is not that God again remits our sin, it is that our conscience is purified/cleansed/purged when it rests in the finished work of the Cross. Our hearts are purified by faith in the historic remission of the Cross.

Forgiveness (which happened prior to the resurrection) is received (i.e., becomes an accepted personal reality) when man comes to trust that the sin remission of the Cross was effective on his behalf. When we come to a personal acknowledgment of Christ and the work of the Cross our heart and/or conscience of sin is purified by faith and made good toward God (Acts 15:9; 1Timothy 1:5; 1Timothy 3:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2,22; 1Peter 3:21). This does not mean that our sin is forgiven/remitted for a second time, it simply means our heart has come to rest in faith that our sin was historically dealt with by God through Christ at Calvary.

As I said before: Baptism is entered into as a response of this good conscience toward God. The man who has come to accept through faith alone the remission of the Cross confesses this faith in Christ and is baptized to signify his passing from spiritual death into spiritual life at the moment he believed (1Peter 3:21; John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

[Kim Komando]

Ultimately, GP is your position that unless the physical circumcision which you equate to water baptism is not performed, and in most cases in our Apostlic mindset, meaning the invocation of the Jesus name formula there is not spiritual circumcision? Does this spiritual circumcision happen at the water baptism?


This is how I see it: hen the new covenant comes, however, the meaning of circumcision changes. On the one hand, since it is an old covenant rite, it no longer signifies membership in the priestly covenant nation (cf. Gal. 5:2-6). True circumcision, according to Paul, is heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25-29), which is also no doubt what the Abrahamic covenant sought (cf. Rom. 4:10ff). Paul can even use circumcision to describe the transition from wrath to grace: "In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses" (Col. 2:11, 13)

I believe this happens when we are quickened to new life at the moment of faith/belief/repentance, or born from above (John 3) . The newborn, male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc. is circumcised by the Spirit of God. Your thoughts?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Adino, what will keep everyone from being saved, since our sins have all been remitted (and you are making great points there) once and for all? Unbelief?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Adino, what will keep everyone from being saved, since our sins have all been remitted (and you are making great points there) once and for all? Unbelief?

Good question and YES, unbelief.

When the charge of universalism is raised we have to realize that although mans sins have been imputed to Christ and removed at Calvary...

1) condemnation is said to come to the unbeliever (John 3:18)
2) the wrath of God abides in the unbeliever (John 3:36)
3) the world is to be reproved of sin because of unbelief (John 16:8-9)

Though God has forgiven all sins imputed to Christ, all men remained spiritually dead until the heart converts from unbelief to faith. Only those who believe have passed from spiritual death unto spiritual life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26).

God has set before us the testimony of his Son. I believe man has two choices. He either:

A) Passes into a state of justification and spiritual LIFE by accepting with a heart of faith the record God gave of his Son setting to his seal that God is true.... (John 3:33; 1John 5:13)

OR...

B) Man calls God a liar by rejecting the record he gave of his Son and REMAINS SPIRITUALLY DEAD in a state of condemnation (1John 5:10-12; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

[*AQuietPlace*]

This makes a lot of sense to me, but what do we do with the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Acts 2?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This makes a lot of sense to me, but what do we do with the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Acts 2?

One possible answer would be to take the non-purposive / non-causal approach to the word "eis" in the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins."

The word has various meanings in the Greek language and 'with a view toward' is one of them. One very possible and structurally sound interpretation of Acts 2:38 would be that baptism is to be performed 'with a view toward' the remission of sins which took place on the Cross. I understand many in the PCI, one of the original parties of the 1945 merger which formed the UPC, hold the word 'eis' to mean 'because of,' but I think if the non-causal route is taken with 'eis' in this passage the 'with a view toward' approach is stronger. Of course, most in modern Oneness Pentecostalism take the purposive approach and try to say remission of sins takes place in baptism. I wholly disagree with this view.

[GrowingPains]

I will respond to both of your questions later. You've proposed enough things, that I'll need to take more than 1 minute to reply.

I would outline this entire discussion 2 ways:

1) baptism as commanded, as found literally in the Bible

2) baptism, as understood as a component and process of our salvation -- some don't see any sense it in misunderstanding the blood of Jesus... others do.

Just about everyone sees and understands the dozens of commands in Scripture to be baptized, including the command from Christ Himself (Mat 28:19, Mark 16:16). Some would like to debate what I personally see are semantics as determining when your salvation is fully complete (no one agrees on this, and there are some that say you aren't saved until "Well done, my good and faithful servant!).

Adino, I would suppose you've already been baptized -- so the questions posed here are not "should I be baptized?" (which is my entire point, just do it and debate it for the next 10 years how it meshes with the message of grace if you'd like). But we will treat the rest of the question like the "next 10 years."

Get back to you later.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Adino, I would suppose you've already been baptized -- so the questions posed here are not "should I be baptized?" (which is my entire point, just do it and debate it for the next 10 years how it meshes with the message of grace if you'd like). But we will treat the rest of the question like the "next 10 years."

Get back to you later.

If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. I asked before whether the object of faith is important. It is. If the Gospel is not the message of baptismal sin remission and you believe it is, then you believe in another gospel than that of Scripture.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

There is only one Gospel of salvation and it matters whether it is that Gospel in which we place our faith.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. I asked before whether the object of faith is important. It is. If the Gospel is not the message of baptismal sin remission and you believe it is, then you believe in another gospel than that of Scripture.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

There is only one Gospel of salvation and it matters whether it is that Gospel in which we place our faith.

I would remind you to learn the context of that verse in Galatians, and I assure you, it had nothing to do with believers seeing the importance of water baptism. Baptism is not a commandment of the law, it's a working of Grace and is reinforced repeatedly in the New Testament.

So you think those who believe baptism as a process of salvation to be accursed? Really????? It's amazing the arrogance your words exude.

This statement is simply false: If I believe I must be baptized 'in order to get my sins remitted,' then my faith is not in a historic remission of the Cross. The reason it's false, is because those who believe in the essentiality of water baptism believe it is only effective BECAUSE of the cross!! So yes, my friend, the focus is most assuredly on the cross! This is a definite logical fallacy on your part, and I'd suggest you stick to scripture as your reasoning.

[GrowingPains]

Further, the name of Jesus has power and authority to save (Acts 4:12). But this power is only BECAUSE of his atonement and resurrection. This doesn't negate the understanding that there is authority when we use His name, nor does it imply we have rejected the cross. Frankly, that's absurd.