Too many want to believe water baptism saves us from sin, rather than being immersed in the Holy Spirit by the Baptism of Jesus. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
” If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.”
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA79#.TkaZaGNN-l4
Yeah, well, I would hope we would all know Ephesians 2:8-9, which says: 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
As Iscool says in post #64, grace is indeed an essential "requirement" for salvation.
Yet I review your cherry picking of the chapters of Scripture -- in this case Acts 3 -- please show any verse in Acts 3 which talks about grace.
By your deceptive logic, grace wouldn't be a "requirement" for that which we've been discussing.
Well indeed apparently Paul didn't do many baptisms...we know he baptized the household of Stephanas -- 1 Cor. 1:16...and of course, the anti-baptists folks like yourself would need to need to prove that no children were living in that household...'cause really all it would it take is for Paul to have baptized one young child...and poof...there goes the total anti-paedo baptism argument.
But let's review your logic for a moment:
1. Paul says not sent to baptize.
2. Therefore, you claim, baptism is NOT the Gospel
3. "Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation."
4. "If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved."
5. Baptism is not efficacious for salvation (repeating your pt #2)
OK. Who said the following?
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW... (Matthew 10:34-35)
OK, I think some of us might recognize that as Jesus.
So, let's apply your logic -- as applied to Paul -- this time to Jesus
1. Jesus says not sent to bring peace
2. Therefore, especially in light of all the family conflict mentioned in Matt. 10:35 by Jesus, peace and reconciliation is not the Gospel
3. Those passages in Matthew 10 are difficult to understand if the peace-on-earth, goodwill-to-men special type of peace & reconciliation brought by Jesus is necessary for an eternal community living forever together in heaven
4. If peace & reconciliation were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Jesus to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom, but not bring peace & reconciliation in the process? No one would have been ever reconciled -- either to God or to fellow mankind
5. Peace & reconciliation is not efficacious for salvation
And yet...what part does Paul say that reconciliation is part of the Gospel??
Do you realize what was recorded in that Acts 3 sermon was less than 350 words? (Of which over 80 of them were 3 letters or less?)
A good chunk of posts on threads like these are over 350 words.
What? Do you think the Biblical accounts were manned by stenographers and its leaders' sermons covered to the nth degree like C-Span?
I'm not sure who I should give out a new FREEPER award on this thread to -- you or Iscool.
I'll call the award, the "John 3:16 Critique Award"
Tell you what. You both can compete for it.
All you have to do is list the 1800 million things we know that are of God that Jesus failed to mention in John 3:16.
You each have til the time change kicks in within your time zone.
(Gentleman, good luck!)
Paul’s particular mission wasn’t to baptize, but he didn’t preach alone. Others could have baptized. You’re relying on a logical fallacy: argumentum ex silentio.
It’s just as easy to argue that baptism was so widely known to and practiced by Christians that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Jesus Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, something his followers were expected to achieve.
The missing element of every Christian faith is continuing revelation. Hence these arguments ad infinitum.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Back up to verse 13 and 14...
1 Corinthians 13 [...] Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
The people were all baptized, just not by Paul. Paul preached about baptism, but he rarely performed the baptisms. Where's the controvery?