Baptism (Immersion) essential to salvation

Lessons from Acts | 1991 | Ken L. Miller, Ed.D.

[arrogantduck]

What do you when 3000 persons respond to a sermon and want to be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins? What do you do when this number of 3000 is added to daily?...

[jo kus]

"It {Baptism by immersion}is more than strongly recommended. It is commanded by Jesus personally, and also by His Apostles."

Jesus also commands us to eat His body and drink His blood, or "you shall not have eternal life within you". Not to open another subject, (Eucharist) but why do you follow one teaching to the letter with no room for any other interpretation, and not the other?

Regards

[jo kus]

"There are passages that make no mention of baptism in regards to salvation and there are those that do. So we need to reconcile the two"

Agreed. It is not an either/or situation. Also, one presumes that if we believe in Jesus Christ, we believe in ALL of His teachings. If He teaches one must partake in the Eucharist, be Baptized, and have faith in Him, aren't these all within the same context? Going through rituals alone doesn't save, as Paul clearly points out. With faith, we believe that God works through the Eucharist and Baptism.

Regards.

[Tribune7]

It does not matter what anyone says because no one knows how God will judge an individual.

I agree with that completely.

[Always Right]

Jesus also commands us to eat His body and drink His blood, or "you shall not have eternal life within you".

Obviously, in that instance he was speaking symbolically. When Christ spoke of baptism, He was actually getting baptized, so it is kind of hard to conclude he was speaking symbolically there.

Why even argue the point? If you are aware that you should be baptized but you do not, I am sure that will not score you many brownie points. People who are not aware or did not have the opportunity, will be judged on those facts.

[jkl1122]

If no one knows what we will be judged on, then everyone is free to do what he/she wants to do. This, however, is in total contradiction to the teaching Scripture.

[Always Right]

If no one knows what we will be judged on, then everyone is free to do what he/she wants to do. This, however, is in total contradiction to the teaching Scripture.

We know what we will be judged on, we just don't know how He will judge. I don't see a contradiction, unless you think man is capable of understanding God completely.

[jkl1122]

You are saying that you don't know whether baptism is required or just recommended. If you don't know that, you don't know what you will be judged on either. God is just, and because of that, He will judge us on what He has revealed to us.

[mike182d]

Do you agree? Or, do you still hold to your claim that Judas must have been a true believer in order to be appointed to the twelve?

Yes, going back to the main question:

Hindsight is 20/20. You argue that Judas couldn't possibly have been a believer because he wasn't saved. Reason suggests the contrary. But what evidence do you have that Judas never professed a belief in Christ at any point in his life? What evidence do we have the you, yourself, may not turn away from God before you die and suffer the same fate? You are presupposing that being a believer is all that is necessary for salvation, and then reconstructing the history of Judas to fit this belief system and then in the face of any sort of logical argumentation that suggests otherwise, you merely revert to a response equivelant to: with God, anything is possible.

That's not much of an argument.

Apostleship differed greatly from discipleship. They are two entirely different types of followers and one could not just "tag along" and be an Apostle of Christ. These men were challenged and called to live a life devoted to Him and the Lord and they were entrusted with a great mission. To say that Jesus picked someone for this position simply because He needed someone to betray Him defies reason and is stretching it, at best (as well as creates many problems with arguments for free-will).

My main point is that just because a person proclaims that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior doesn't mean they'll make it to heaven. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and not become complacent, lest we end up like Judas.

Regarding Romans 9, I cannot find in that chapter anything stating that God creates certain men that He destines for Hell from the beginning, or as part of His "plan."

[Always Right]

You are saying that you don't know whether baptism is required or just recommended. If you don't know that, you don't know what you will be judged on either.

I never said it was 'just recommended', I said at least recommended simply to make the point if a person does not believe that baptism is required, he should do it anyways. I believe it is a requirement for those who are aware and had the opportunity, but then again I would never assume to know how God will judge an individual.

[Tribune7]

If no one knows what we will be judged on, then everyone is free to do what he/she wants to do.

Everyone is free to do what he or she wants to do, with the understanding that our Creator wills us to do certain things and that there will be consequences for rebellion.

Now, the topic we are discussing is Baptism (Immersion) essential to salvation.

I don't want it thought that baptism shouldn't be done (it should) or that baptism by immersion is bad (it's not) but is it proper for members of a denomination that insists on immersion, to tell members of a denomination that does not, that they are not Christians?

If baptism by immersion is essential to salvation, then absolutely.

I, however, think such effort is worse than foolish in that it demeans Christ and will dissaude people from following Him in the spirit of truth that He wishes.

This means baptism by immersion is not essential to salvation.

[jo kus]

"Obviously, in that instance he was speaking symbolically"

Disciples don't just walk away from symbolic speech! However, the point is that you disagree with others who feel sprinkling is sufficient/not sufficient for Baptism. Do you see my point? I agree with your last statement that one willingly refusing to join the Church (by Baptism) calls his eternal salvation into question.

Regards

[jkl1122]

Your opinions do not make something fact. So just because you believe that those who teach that baptism is essential for salvation are "worse than foolish" in doing so, that isn't proof that baptism isn't essential for salvation.

Please read post #145 and answer the 3 questions I posed in that post, if you don't mind.

[Always Right]

Disciples don't just walk away from symbolic speech! However, the point is that you disagree with others who feel sprinkling is sufficient/not sufficient for Baptism. Do you see my point?

I believe God will be just in His judgement. If a person was baptised by sprinkling and they in their hearts believed they were following the will of God, then God will judge them on that basis. I think if you really read the Bible, you should conclude that it should be done in the name of Jesus and by immersion.

[newgeezer]

You argue that Judas couldn't possibly have been a believer because he wasn't saved. Reason suggests the contrary.

Hah. Your "reason" suggests the contrary to you, but only because you have bought into the idea of there being a whole system of qualifications and litmus tests for Judas before Jesus would be justified in making him one of the twelve.

(No surprise there! ;-)

[Tribune7]

Acts 2:38 says that baptism is "for the remission of sins". Can you become a Christian before your sins are remitted?

First this is how the verse reads in the NIV: 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter's telling a crowd repent and be baptised. Good. No argument. Is it the repentence or the act of immersion that's the effective action?

Second, and more importantly, to imply that baptism (by immersion) is what remits our sins implies that this does not.

Acts 22:16 says that baptism "washes away sins". Can you become a Christian before your sins are washed away?

In this verse Paul is exhorting people to accept Christ, not that the act of baptism is essential for salvation

Galatians 3:27 says that "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ". Can you become a Christian before you "put on Christ"?

Gal 3:26 is really more to the point "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,"

Actually this is even more to the point

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

As is this:

Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

As is this:

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”

[topcat54]

A dispensationalist might respond that Peter was only preaching to kingdom Jews in Acts 2.

"Now when they ["Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven", v. 5] heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2)

In response to the question "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul told the (gentile) Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." {No mention of baptism in Paul's response.}

A dispensationalist might say that repentance and baptism are kingdom requirements, while grace/faith are church age requirements.

Of course that answer would be wrong, but you could try it.

The fact is that men in the Bible were saved prior to being baptized with water.

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." (Acts 10:44ff)

Was it the water that saved them, or the indwelling Holy Spirit? Baptism was the outward sign and seal of God's saving grace that brought faith and salvation to the believer.

[jkl1122]

Amazing. You said all that, and didn't answer a single question I asked.

Acts 2:38 does not negate Matthew 26:28. Yes, Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, but we do not receive that remission of sins until we obey his commandments, which includes baptism.

In Acts 22:16, it is Ananias telling Paul to "be baptized, washing away your sins". You still did not answer my question. Is it possible to become a Christian without having your sins washed away?

I agree that Galatians 3:26 is very important to this discussion. Let's look at both verses.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Verse 26 tells us that we become sons of God through faith. How do we do that? Verse 27 explains it for us. The word translated "for" at the beginning of verse 27 is a conjunction . It ties the 2 verse together, and thus verse 27 explains how we become sons of God through faith. It is by being baptized into Christ. And yet you still didn't answer my question. Is it possible to become a Christian without putting on Christ?

[jkl1122]

Actually, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family to show the Jews that Gentiles would also be accepted by God. There are not multiple ways to salvation in the New Testament church. There is only one. And in all 10 stories in Acts in which people are saved, baptism is mentioned in every one of them. Why do you think that is?

[asformeandformyhouse]

So you're saying that baptism (by immersion) is a requirement for salvation?

No, that's what the inspired word of God is saying. My opinion doesn't matter. I only know what God requires via reading his word.

[fortheDeclaration]

A dispensationalist might respond that Peter was only preaching to kingdom Jews in Acts 2. "Now when they ["Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven", v. 5] heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2) In response to the question "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul told the (gentile) Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." {No mention of baptism in Paul's response.} A dispensationalist might say that repentance and baptism are kingdom requirements, while grace/faith are church age requirements. Of course that answer would be wrong, but you could try it. The fact is that men in the Bible were saved prior to being baptized with water. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." (Acts 10:44ff) Was it the water that saved them, or the indwelling Holy Spirit? Baptism was the outward sign and seal of God's saving grace that brought faith and salvation to the believer.

The issue in Acts 2:38 is not the water baptism, it is the message that is being preached.

In Acts 2:38 you do not have Christ dying for anyone's sins.

As is the Gospel message today (1Cor.15:3-5)

Peter is talking about David and the promise of his seed ruling over Israel.

That a different Gospel was being preached (John the Baptist) is shown in Acts 18 where Apollos has to be shown 'the way of God more perfectly' and in Acts 19, where Paul encounters 12 disciples who had believed John's Gospel but had not received the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:3-7)