I have no problem at all with the references to the faith of Abraham. I understand that he is the example that is used for faith. Abraham received the promise before circumcision. Circumcision is not of faith, but simply an ordinance. The LAW came because of transgressions. There was given a lot of ordinances by it. It couldn’t save, but the Lord followed it while he walked this earth, even directing some that he healed to go show themselves to the priest, and offer the things that Moses commanded. Only Jesus Christ could fulfill the Law. Only he could bring in a better covenant.
But, by faith Abraham obeyed God. Stephen testified to the unbelievers that God called Abraham, saying, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.” Acts 7:3
So if Abraham believed the promise (of the land), he also had to believe the CONDITIONS of the promise (leave his homeland, and kindred).
Believing the promises in Acts 2:38 (remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost), means also believing the conditions of the promises (repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ).
The Ethiopian eunuch knew that baptism was a condition (even though the details of Philip’s witness is quite condensed in that passage), for as soon as he spotted water he asked for it to be done.
The Lord commanded the disciples to baptize all nations. That would include those that would become the converts in the churches of Galatia. So saying baptism was not necessary, or is a work of men, is at least a half hearted rebellion against his command (which includes Acts 2:38).
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ”. Gal. 3:27
I’m not arguing with baptism,.
Only that baptism is a requirement of salvation.
I’m not arguing with baptism,.
Only that baptism is a requirement of salvation.
Or rather a requirement FOR salvation, that one isn’t saved until and unless they are baptized.
Scripture does not bear that out.