What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Worthynews.com ^ | July 11th, 1875 | D. L. Moody

[jkl1122]

Actually, if you will study yourself, you will see that baptism is shown to put us into relationship with Christ, which can only happen when we are saved, several times in the Bible. And even if it was taught only once, that is enough for me. How many times must God tell you something before you believe it? Here are some of the passages that show baptism in relationship to salvation:
(Matt. 28:18-20,Mark 16:15-16,John 3:1-6,Acts 2:36-41,Acts 22:12-16,Romans 6:3-7,Galatians 3:26-27,Colossians 2:9-12,1 Peter 3:18-22)

Is that enough times for you?

[xzins]

You are an excellent example of a denominational group that has unique distinctives. (I'm not sure if you're Church of Christ??) but your theology is unique to your group.

The book of doctrines contains many chapters and only one of them deals with free will. To lump everyone together who shares that similarity is, I suppose, one way to reduce the complexity, but it is a way that wears blinders.

Similarly, if one were to group together all groups that hold to determinism, we'd have to include everything from reformed baptists to islamic fundamentalists.

I read one guy recently who decried his former life as a reformed baptist because they didn't have a presbyterian form of government. His take was that the other reformed group had it right and his prior group's position constituted sinning.

Would he agree that his former group and his current group are the same simply because they both hold to determinism?

Inch Allah???

[HarleyD]

"They are based on your preconceived ideas on Grace and salvation."

I'm a ignorant savage. You will find I research everything. I have few "ideas" and fewer still "preconceived ideas".

"I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore is the only thing I need to teach me about God's Grace and salvation."

Well, I think just about everyone out on this site will make this claim-except maybe the Catholics.

"When a penitent sinner is baptized, it isn't the water magically doing anything. It is the sinner's submission to the will of Christ"

I would suggest the sinner has submitted to the will of Christ long before he/she is baptized. Otherwise they wouldn't want to be baptized. Baptism is an outward manifestation of that submission.

[Buggman]

Obviously, you would not claim that the shedding of Christ's blood was not required for salvation. However, you claim that baptism is not required, even though the language has them doing the same thing.

Without intending to be trite in my response, when was the thief on the cross beside Jesus baptized?

[jkl1122]

I have answered this question I don't know how many times in this one thread alone. The thief on the cross was not under the New Covenant, as we are today, because Christ had not died yet. Also, the church was not established until Pentecost, after Christ had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Jesus had the power to save anyone He wished while on the Earth. Case closed.

[xzins]

Where Spurgeon has issues is in “…the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification”. The scriptures says: “Salvation belongs to the Lord” Psalms 3:8......outside the box...

Actually, Harley there is only one issue here and that issue is biblical authority.

I can easily think outside the box. I understand how the bible is constructed for you to arrive at your point. I even believe it is a biblical case that you make.

However, I personally believe that the biblical case is stronger for free will. It, too, can be researched in scripture and all of the bases are covered. I have compared the 2 and I still find the determinist position weaker.

You look at it and you find the free will position weaker.

If my position or your position were constructed based on "philosophy or the rudiments of the world and not after Christ" then that position would be wrong.

That is not the case with either of us, and that is why both of us are Christians. We are doing as required by the Bible and working "out our (own) salvation in fear and trembling."

[jkl1122]

"I would suggest the sinner has submitted to the will of Christ long before he/she is baptized. Otherwise they wouldn't want to be baptized. Baptism is an outward manifestation of that submission."

Please show me Biblical proof that baptism is an outward manifestation of the submission to Christ. Without Biblical proof, this is just your opinion.

[HarleyD]

Fair enough.

[Buggman]

The thief on the cross was not under the New Covenant, as we are today, because Christ had not died yet.

Okay, but I still see two problems:

1) If the thief died under the "old" covenant, wouldn't he need to offer an animal sacrifice to be cleansed of his sins? Or, if faith without baptism made one righteous before God as it did in the case of Abraham (Gen. 15, Rom. 4), why would it become an added condition under the new?

2) Baptism for repentence was instituted by John the Baptist, not Jesus:

And he said to them, "Then to what were you baptized?" And they said, "To John's baptism." And Paul said, "John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ." --Acts 19:3-4

Therefore, if baptism is required for repentence rather than being a sign of it (which is the predominant Christian view), the thief was still hosed by not receiving it, since it had been instituted by God through John over three years before.

[jkl1122]

1) As I stated, Christ could forgive anyone he chose to forgive. I can not for sure tell you why baptism is required in the New Testament, I just know that the Bible so teaches. In baptism, we are buried and raised to a new life, which parallels what Christ has done for us. It is not the water that does anything, it is our submission to the will of Christ.

2) There is no proof that the thief on the cross had not been baptized by John the Baptist. The Bible clearly states that many in the area were baptized, so he very easily could have been one those who had been baptized. Either way, the fact is Christ had the power to forgive sins while He was here.

[Buggman]

If I can make another observation, in many ways this is really an argument over whether the glass is half-empty or half-full.

One could rightly say that from God's eternal, out-of-time perspective, our election is predetermined, since to God all time is already laid out and there are no surprises (which again is why the Bible says that His predestination is based on His foreknowledge). But from the human POV (which God also takes from time-to-time, interestingly enough), the one we operate in and make decisions in, the future is yet open, and we have choices to make. From the Bible, one can see both views presented.

To overemphasize either, without recognizing that both are true, is IMHO the real problem the theologians have in dealing with this issue rightly.

[jkl1122]

I believe what you said is exactly right.

[xzins]

I have responded biblically to your comments on the thief and the new covenant and have shown biblically the rationale that says the thief WAS under the New Covenant.

John the Baptist was the last prophet of the Old Covenant.

Jesus the Christ was the first preacher of the New Covenant. His own words during his ministry to a non-believing Nicodemus (early in the Book of John) were "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

This message was given to Nicodemus well BEFORE Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus was the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.

[Buggman]

As I stated, Christ could forgive anyone he chose to forgive.

Then I don't see the problem here. Clearly, if Christ can forgive whom He wants to forgive on the basis of that person's repentence and decision to trust Him, then baptism isn't "required" by definition.

OTOH, if a person claimed to be saved, but refused baptism, we might wonder if there was a problem, since they were starting out their alleged Christian walk in disobedience.

There is no proof that the thief on the cross had not been baptized by John the Baptist.

There's not a shred of proof that he had, either. And if he had been baptized for repentence, would he still have been called a thief by the authors of the Gospel accounts?

I think that you're overreaching and presuming a lot in order to get around an obvious hole in your theology in this matter. But as long as you believe that it is your trust in Jesus Christ, His diety, and His work on your behalf on the cross that saves you, and not the fact that you've been immersed in water, it's really a relatively minor issue that's not worth getting into an extended debate over.

[jkl1122]

I stick by what the Bible teaches. There are many verses that link baptism for the remission of sins with salvation. If you choose to believe differently, that is your choice.

[HarleyD]

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Acts 10: 44-47

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Eph 1:13

Cornelius and company received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized. As we can see from Ephesians the Holy Spirit is our guarantee of our promise-not our baptism.

BTW-Some of the words Peter spoke were:

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Acts 10:43

No mention of baptism.

[jkl1122]

Baptism is clearly tied to the remission of sins(Acts 2:38),washing away sins(Acts 22:16) and putting on Christ(Galatians 3:27). If you believe that you can be saved before your sins have been remitted, before they have been washed away, and before you have put on Christ, then so be it. I, for one, believe that none of these things can be accomplished without baptism, since that is what the Bible teaches. If you don't agree, that is your right.

[xzins]

No mention of baptism.

You are quite right about that verse. However, to take up JK's point, there are verses that do link a necessity for baptism. We must deal with those.

No matter what we conclude, we cannot throw water baptism overboard.

It might not be a requirement for salvation, but it is presented as a necessary step.....We are told to baptize and believers are instructed to be baptized. I think submitting to baptism is a sign of believing in and submitting to Christ, and I think that refusal of baptism, when there is no unusual preventing circumstance,is sign that one has not really believed and submitted to their new Lord's instructions.

[jkl1122]

It's nice to see someone at least acknowledge that baptism has to be taken seriously. While I don't totally agree with your view of baptism, I do think it is a step in the right direction.

[xzins]

step in the right direction

I believe that your intent is to demonstrate your points biblical. That tells me that you are a bible Christian and not a philosophical christian.

Those verses are in the bible, and like you, we should all take them seriously and put them in a biblical context. We might still arrive at different places, and we might debate one another over how we interpreted the Bible, but, fortunately, we are all using God's Word.