Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[pelathais]

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.

Nah! We wouldn't have him 'cause he works for the govrnmint! Yur stuck with him!

[Aquila]

Yep, I work for the government... like Daniel.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yep, I work for the government... like Daniel.

Can you really see what they say you can see? Just like they say that you can see it?

I don't imagine that's often going to be a temptation and trial for you... but the gross out factor's gotta be huge.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Can you really see what they say you can see? Just like they say that you can see it?

I don't imagine that's often going to be a temptation and trial for you... but the gross out factor's gotta be huge.

So far in my government service I've been an Administrative Typist II, an Account Reconciliation Clerk I, a Payroll Clerk I, and now I'm a Security Access Coordinator for a local airport. Working for the government is an eye opener. I can often see both sides of an issue where most often see only what the average private citizen sees.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

And, actually, no..... Christ did not command us to be baptized. He commanded his disciples to disciple and to baptize .......

Amazing that the Great Commission is no longer the church's marching orders. I must have missed that memo today.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Amazing that the Great Commission is no longer the church's marching orders. I must have missed that memo today.

Adino is brilliant but his prejudice that colors his thinking sometimes is alarming. I read and say did he really say that?
Go teach-baptize is no longer a command.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

Matthew 7:22 comes to mind, but I truly hope you are saved in spite of your doctrine. We will leave that up to God, who knows the heart to decide.

You have to come to terms with the resurrection, my friend. Our sins were placed on Christ. Christ rose. That he rose proved something concerning the sin imputed to him. It proved they had been removed. It proved the blood of Christ was adequately sufficient in their removal. It proved that God's plan for sin remission effectively worked.

You can say till the cows come home how you think you finish this work of remission in baptism, but it doesn't negate the fact that Christ rose from the dead declaring those sins GONE.

Rest in that Good News.

Is your faith in Christ alone or is it in Christ PLUS your additional self saving works? Is your faith perpetually in what Christ did to KEEP you saved or is it in your daily ability to remain 'good enough' to be saved? Is the object of your faith Christ alone or Christ PLUS you?

I think your doctrine has now gone to heretical. You are one of those who come against the churches of God to tell them they are unsaved for obeying the scriptures, and because of a technicality like believing the Word for what it says, they are possibly lost for eternity.

Amazes me that you don't believe in Universalism (though that's the logical conclusion with your ideas), but suggest man DOES, in fact, have to do something to have the blood applied to their life, but stop short of what the Bible says because it doesn't jive with you.

You have created a false argument by saying we believe there is power in the waters of baptism -- that by baptism alone, we are saved. You forget, the power of God's commands to save us come from his Victory on the cross and in the resurrection. It's ALL through His atoning work.

You've made a decent attempt in an Apostolic forum to persuade otherwise, but let me be one of the brothers to simply say "thanks, but no thanks." I enjoy the conversation, but at the end of the day, that's heresy to the umpteenth degree. The man who says one is saved by simply believing on Christ for redemption, denies his brother that same salvation, because he believes the Word for what it says. You go and continue to reason out how God's plan for man should be. His ways our higher than ours. I'll just stick to what the Word says on this issue, and the enormity of scripture is on my side.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

Did GP end up being a baptismal remissionist after all that speak of representations, signs, seals and circumcision. I'm not sure he's declared himself other than a lot of talk about water baptism being like circumcision. I thought GP might be a paedobaptist?

I thought his doctrine on putting on the name was interesting too. He even appealed to Middle Eastern culture. No bible but interesting nonetheless.

No Bible? Putting on the name? Gal 3:27, Heb 6:1-3 (let's move on, the Apostle says), That's just using hermeneutics by explaining the possible cultural meaning to the contemporaries of Christ. But that Baptism is full of representation, signs, covenants, circumcision, and anything else the Apostles called it, is not part of marginalizing its importance. On the contrary, much of our NT soteriology is of the fulfillment of many types and shadows in the Old Testament, causing them to inherently all have a relationship to symbols.

Kim, I'm most definitely against infant baptism.

[GrowingPains]

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.

Aquila, I actually agree with most of your thoughts here. I don't think our traditions are heresy or false doctrine, however, and whether pouring, dunking or speaking in tongues when you go down in the water, those are all "vain babblings", so to speak. In respect of our traditions, I have no trouble continuing to call the name of the Lord while baptizing, though acknowledging the scriptures never one time teach that the man of God said this (though it did show the baptizee professing his faith). In very close agreement there.

[GrowingPains]

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?

To form a doctrine on a subject, all scriptures on that subject should be first considered so that there is harmony.

Answering your question: YES! We all believe in that reconciliation... or I would assume most on this forum do.

(Sorry, just now catching up to these posts)