Is Baptism essential for salvation

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.


Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.


Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.


Water baptism does not save you. Only the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

Paul didn't think so:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

Welcome to BB 2Tim. 2:15. I deleted your duplicate posts for you. Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

Paul presents Abraham as the model of how people are saved, whether in the OT, NT or today (Romans 4).

You can't miss it!

 

God callled Paul to preach the gospel which Paul said did not include baptism. Obviously baptism is not essentially to salvation. Paul said so. God called him to preach the gospel, not to baptize. Thus baptism is not part of the gospel; how could it be. Many were saved under his ministry; all of them without being baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Christ sent me not to baptize.
Christ sent me to preach the gospel.
Therefore the gospel does not and cannot include baptism. It never did.

 

Correct, and the only ceremony that was before him was circumcision and came after his faith as a seal of an existing faith (Rom 4:9-12).

Baptism is our "circumcision" and must come after our saving faith in Jesus Christ. That is what I see in Scripture.

 

Then Abraham is not the model of those who would exercise saving faith.

 

First of all, water baptism is NOT a replacement for circumcision. Circumcision came before the Law in Genesis 17 where God said to Abraham:

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Genesis 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

If in fact water baptism replaces circumcision, and only male babies are circumcised, what happens to the female babies? Circumcision was a token of the covenant between God and Abraham and Abraham's seed...and it is an everlasting covenant. It was not replaced by water baptism or infant baptism. In the N.T., circumcision is used as a symbol of the new birth (Col. 2:10-14).

Water baptism does NOT save....it is not required for salvation. It is a public testimony of the believer's identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Romans 6:3-5) Baptism is a figure (1 Peter 3:21), a symbol, a picture. Baptism is not a part of salvation; it is symbolic of salvation. We are saved, not by water going over our bodies, but by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believer's baptism (immersion) is an ordinance of the church.

 

Part of the problem with your handling of 1 Peter 3:21 is that you cut Peter off mid-sentence.

Read the rest of his sentence. He clarifies that he does not mean the water bath. He then clarifies what he means.

Gotta go. I will join this more later.

 

I find this scripture passage to be revealing:

Acts 9:17, Ananias speaking to Saul: "Brother Saul...."
Acts 9:18 "......he received his sight forthwith, arose and was baptized."

Ananias called Saul "Brother," a fellow believer, before Saul was baptized.

 

Tom, this is instructive but you can't just leave it there. You also have to deal with Acts 22:16, which in context says:

There are five N.T. passages that speak overtly and unequivocally about the saving effect of baptism and this is one of them.
Incidentally, the other four are John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21. There are others as well but they are not quite so "in your face" as these.

 

Let me start out by saying that I am avid advocate that Christians get baptized. I believe Scripture teaches that Christians should be baptized and as close to pronto as doable. The question I am answering is not `Do Christians have to be baptized?' because the answer to that is yes. The question I am addressing is if baptism is possible without baptism.

These four are "`in your face'" teaching that even believers will be unsaved if they fail to get themselves baptized.

Acts 22:16 -- is the "wash away thy sins" referring to baptism, or "calling on the name of the Lord"?

John 3:5 -- is that talking about baptism? It says "born of water and the Spirit" if I am not mistaken. Given how ancient Hebrew terminology described natural birth, and John 3:3-6, I have a problem believing this passage is talking about baptism.

Mark 16:16, assuming the authenticity of anything after Mark 16:8. "Mark 16:16" goes "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (NKJV). I am missing where it says that `he who believes but is not baptized will be condemned also.'

Acts 2:38 follows Acts 2:37, which asks "brethren, what shall we do" (ASV emphasis mine). Peter replied in Acts 2:38. I present his reply translated with more precision than English is capable of: "Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). The word order parallels English, but the grammatical structure points us to `Repent for the remission of sins' and embedded in that is a directive to respond to this repentance by getting themselves baptized. What I do not see is a statement of the following nature: `Away from here and now, people who fail to get baptized will not have their sins taken away.'

1 Peter 3:21, in reference to water, when Peter is not cut off mid-sentence: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (NASB). Peter made it clear that the bath in water does not save us. He made it clear that the "appeal to God for a good conscience" is what saves us.

Peter never contradicted himself, nor would he contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. The passages that follow ARE "in your face."

John 3:16-8

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to |condemn| the world; but that the world should be saved through him. |Whoever| believeth on him is not |condemned|: he that believeth not hath been |condemned| already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (ASV with |TNIV|).​

The passage expressly says "he that believeth on him is not condemned."

Peter echoed this teaching of Jesus Christ at Acts 10:43 “everyone that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins” (ASV).

These are universal statements and explicit statements. No person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will be condemned. Every person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ will "receive remission of sins." This includes those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, yet by some mistake or some misfortune were not baptized.