Does Salvation require baptistm?

FreeAtLast,

When you stated, "It is impossible to be in a state of repentance and rebellion at the same time."

What do you consider a "state of repentance" and where is that found in Scripture?

 

Still wrong, you don't know.
The way you talk you must be Catholic, or Anglican.

 

Repentance is turning to God not reformation. Based on the word It is a 180 degree turn, not a partical turn. Once we biblically repent we never un-repent.
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

 

Only in Baptist circles....not Paedo....they are taught that their baptism was & is sufficient. go into the Presbyterian / Puritan Site & see what they tell you.

 

So we are left with the conclusion that Martin Luther was not saved?

 

Pretty much true doctrine. Have some relative who were Paedo and they are the strongest Christians I know.

 

"We never un-repent?"

Are you stating that there is never a time that repentance would ever again be needed?

 

What are you talking about? He was baptized.

 

:laugh::laugh:: He is amusing isn't he!!! :laugh::laugh:

 

Not towards God there won't. True believers live in a state of repentance towards God. As believers we do have to turn from the sin we might commit from time to time, but our sin is not a practice.

 

The title: Does Salvation require baptistm<sic>?

The problem here has nothing to do with baptism really, but with the heart of the person involved who is refusing baptism.

I'd seriously doubt the salvation of ANYONE who refuses baptism. Acts 2:41 is given to us, and, those that received His Word were baptized. So we have a "sheep" who refuses to obey His alleged Shepherds command? Scripturally, His Sheep obey His voice, and follow Him. I'd doubt, Scripturally speaking, and with evidence of the Scriptures this person has ever been regenerated.

I find it interesting those who are arguing this as a work. It's a response of those truly saved, it's not a work. It's simply following in obedience to what Christ has said, it has nothing to do with works, but with obedience and demonstration of one being a true sheep by following His command to be baptized.

Yes, now we have "sheep" climbing into the fold any way they want, and we have others defending their decision to not be baptized (by implication), as though it is to be construed as a work. Wonderful. Go ahead and preach that nonsense, OK?

It's none of that, it's simply the obedience of His sheep to do so.

 

Excellent! :thumbs:

 

...as an infant, not as a believer...He made no choice to be baptized.

 

Fal,

Some of the discussion was referring to those who believe their infant baptism was valid, so I was assuming you were including them in your statements...Did I missunderstand you?

 

Are you saying you need to be baptised to be saved?

 

Yes. My statements are based on someone who refuses the command, not someone who thinks they have carried it out even though not done properly. As you know Luther had many improper understandings, but he was repentant to the truth. Lacking improper understanding does not constitute willful rebellion which is what I am refering to.

 

Embellish on that commentary.....what do you consider proper & improper baptism?

 

Going totally under the water one time is proper. Sprinkling, multiple submersions, infant baptisms, baptisms prior to salvation are not proper.

 

No he is in rebellion to You not me. While Luther preferred immersion he did not feel it was the only way.
Here is part of Luther’s Catechism;
XIIIA.
Part Fourth

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God...
Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them;

So you see although incorrect he felt his baptism was proper. He was not in rebellion, just deceived on the issue.