Replies

If baptism were that critical to salvation, there there would certainly have been more mention of its necessity in Scripture. The verses that people use as proof text are weak at best and contradict MANY other passages that state that it's through faith. Period.

Circumcision did not save either and that was not required for believers. The Council at Jerusalem addressed the works of the Law issue and made NO mention of the need for baptism.

Since they stated that the Holy Spirit directed them in their instructions to the early church, and baptism was not mentioned, then is is safe to conclude that it is not an issue.

This is the decision and the instructions by the Holy Spirit of what is required.....

Acts 15

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

If baptism were that critical to salvation, there there would certainly have been more mention of its necessity in Scripture.

How many mentions of the action of baptism in remission of sins would it take to convince you?

The verses that people use as proof text are weak at best and contradict MANY other passages that state that it's through faith.

If Hebrews 11:30 said only "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down", would you conclude that marching wasn't necessary? Does that verse contradict itself because it mentions the works of faith necessary for the result to take place?

I guess I just don't see the contradiction you do. How does stating that we're saved by faith mean that we're not saved by grace? How does saying we're saved by grace mean we're not saved by confessing the Christ? How does saying we're saved by confession mean we're not saved by believing? How does saying we're saved by believing mean we're not saved by baptism?

Which ONE saves us?

Since they stated that the Holy Spirit directed them in their instructions to the early church, and baptism was not mentioned, then is is safe to conclude that it is not an issue.

I know you can't mean that. After all, they wrote nothing about faith either. Are you saying faith isn't needed?

I know you wouldn't say that. You'd say (correct me if I misrepresent you) that the letter was written to people who had already heard and obeyed the gospel, so it would be redundant to write them an answer to the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (i.e. Acts 16:30)

Well, why mention baptism in a letter, addressed to Christians, that's not about remission of sins, but about circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses?