Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Aninias mentioned having your sins washed in baptism. The referrence is quite clear. And if you remember a correlation occured to me with the Jewish tradition of Mikvah. I think if you really study Jesus from a Jewish perspective you might have a better idea of him. I'm not saying accept the Jewish belief about Jesus (obviously they don't think that he is messiah) but Jesus was Jewish and lived rightly before God and perfectly with out sin which means he maintained the Law in his life. The amount of Jews being baptized by John also shows a societal view of water cleansing which is also Mikvah. Remember the Old is revealed in the New. (which btw is an ECF statement often used by non Orthodox - Catholic christians.)

 

Looks like to me, I am following Scripture.

Unless you can explain what else that passage might have been saying such that not "everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins," I will suggest you have nothing content-based. Not liking what the passage says, and having no different content to offer on the subject, you posted to me out of spite for `daring' to point it out.

Unless you can show me why that passage does not teach "everyone that believeth on him," it looks like between the two of us, you are following opinion, and I am following Scripture.

 

It would be useful if we could get away from proof-texting first...otherwise I'll just fire back at you Acts 2:38 and I Peter 3:21.

 

So the Bible contradicts itself?

You are suggesting that Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV) can be true, and `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins' is also true. That would be a contradiction.

Scripture has no contradictions. At 1 Peter 3:21, Peter just has to be allowed to finish his sentence. People like to rudely cut him off in the middle and make him appear to be saying something he is not. Let him finish: "--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (NASB). He was clear that it was not the bath, but what it represents: "an appeal to God for a good conscience."

As for Acts 2:38, the 1769 KJV really botched that one. In Portuguese translations, it is handled rightly; for example: “Arrependei-vos, e cada um de vós seja batizado em nome de Jesus Cristo, para remissão de vossos pecados” (VRA). We repent for remission of sins; baptism is obligated from such repentance. Acts 2:38 is simply Peter obeying Jesus Christ at Luke 24:47 that "repentance for| remission of sins should be preached" (NASB|ASV).

Neither verse you teaches the likes of `everyone that believeth on him, except those who never get baptized, receives remission of sins.' Acts 10:43 says what it means and means what it says: “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV).

 

No, the Bible does not contradict itself in reality although at times it seems to (another reason we need Tradition!). But my point was that one cannot read one (or even two) proof-text(s) in isolation and state with certainty that it/they is/are normative for constructing a soteriology. To do so is like the Pentecostal insisting that because one or two of the conversion narratives in Acts has/have the converts speaking in tongues, therefore speaking in tongues is normative to conversion. It's simply an illogical conclusion.

 

Which so-called "Tradition"? Orthodox? Catholic? Some other group? Why? Because you say so? Probably the latter, although I am sure you will deny that.

As for the issue at hand, which you are working to take the thread away from to discuss your particular `hobby horse,' the Bible settles the thread's real issue. If any "Tradition" contradicts Scripture or alleges that Scripture contradicts itself, the written Word of God is right and the "Tradition" is wrong.

You are suggesting that Acts 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV) can be true, and `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins' is also true. That would be a contradiction. It cannot be true.

Acts 10:43 says what it means and means what it says: “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV). That is what is true.

 

I'd say the: (1) Tradition (consensus) of the earliest Undivided Church in the first 4-5 centuries; because it is within this context that the limits of the Canon itself were finally 'fixed'* at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th; -and- (2) the consensus of the historic churches continuous with faith of the same.

(*the exceptions are the Ethiopian Church which add a few more books to their OT and NT, and the 'Church of the East" which has a few less in the NT)

 

The reference is not as clear as you think. Why don't you go back to Acts chapter nine, and read the original account? Why do you keep avoiding the question as to the time of Saul's salvation? When was Saul saved? Please answer that question!

In Acts 22 Paul is nearing the end of his life. The Lord gives him a promise that he will go to Rome. He spends two more years in prison by the hand of Felix, and then Paul finally appeals to Caesar. He goes to Rome. He spends two years there. And then soon after that is beheaded for his faith. Prior to this time in Acts 22 Paul has given up his Jewish faith. He has completed three missionary journeys, and started over 100 churches. At the Council in Jerusalem Paul spoke against putting any such Jewish burdens on the Gentiles. Mikvah was out of the question. All such Jewish ceremonies had been nailed to the cross. They were to be celebrated no more. If a Muslim becomes a Christian he doesn't hold on to his Islamic feasts. The same is true for a Jew, or a Buddhist, or of any other religion. They forsake their religion and become a Christian. One cannot serve two masters.

Christ's command was to follow him; not to follow the Jewish religion.

No it doesn't. That is ridiculous. John practiced no such thing. If John practiced "Mikvah" then so do the Hindus today. It has about the same value. It is a different religion. John preached a baptism unto repentance--that is after you have repented then you may be baptized as a sign that you have repented.

Yes, but it is not butchered in the NT. It is revealed to us through Jesus Christ. Read Hebrews 1:1,2. You can't read into Scripture things that are not there.

 

DHK:
"Bible which clearly teaches to repent, and then be baptized. There is no teaching in the Bible that links baptism to salvation."

GE:
And clearly there is no teaching in the Bible that links repentance to water-baptism.

 

If it weren't for Romans 3:21-5:1 and Gal 3:1-14, I would probably be advocating salvation access at the point of water baptism.

1. Abrahamic faith becomes the model of how people are in the right with God.

2. Abrahamic faith is seen as universal for both Jews and Gentiles.

3. Abrahamic faith precedes the ritual of circumcision.

4. Since Abrahamic faith is seen as the universal and his ritual came after his justifying faith, so too, baptism, our ritual, must come after justifying faith, the faith of Abraham.

 

Matt,

Its not a cult, its Gods way...

Notice the bolded parts Matt. God does not say that "the hierarchy" or the "magesterium" or the "consensus of the church" have known the scriptures since childhood.

God tells us that the one individual has known them since childhood.

Also notice that God does not say that the "hierarchy" of God, or the "magesterium" of God or the "consensus of the church" may be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

He tells us that the individual christian will be complete and thoroughly equipped by means of the scriptures.

We are to NEVER, under any circumstances, heed tradition as being authorititave and/or a source for doctrine or authority.

Christ condemns this wickedness...

Very dangerous falsehoods you are advocating, Matt. Not good at all.


:godisgood:

 

TC GReek:
"baptism, our ritual, must come after justifying faith, the faith of Abraham."

GE:
We have no rituals.
Abraham's circumcision showed the blood decendency of Jesus from Abraham. When Christ had come, circumcision had no more worth or validity. Baptism did not come in the place of circumcision.
The baptism that saves had been there before circumcision and would stay the same saving baptism after circumcision had gone.
"One baptism" - not several. The baptism that saves. That baptism is one: "with Christ crucified and raised"; in Him-- the baptism "In the Name"; the baptism of the Holy Spirit-- regeneration.

Water-baptism used to be a sign of apostles' authority; no longer apostles, no longer water-baptism.

 

OK, let's take your post item by item:

I note that you ignore II Tim 3:14 in the passage from which you quoted. If you read the whole of the passage, you will see that both Scripture and Tradition are referenced there.

The 'one individual' to whom you refer was in fact a Bishop of the Church, and one of St Paul's successors, not just any old Joe.

What you have in practice with the sola Scriptura approach you are advocating (which in any event was alien to Christianity prior to the 16th century) is the assumption that proof-texting+the Holy Spirit+human reason=Truth, ie: you rely on a mixture of the Holy Spirit (Who is within all Christians) plus human fallibility to come up with the correct interpretation, which is a very 'dangerous falsehood' to adopt.

Your quoting of Jesus' condemnation of 'the commandments of men' would be relevant if that is what we were talking about here. It isn't. We are talking here about the commandments of God, as mediated by Scripture and Tradition.

DT has pretty much answered this. I would say the Tradition of the Undivided Church.

 

The "Undivided Church"? Well, that would then be the church at Jerusalem during the early part of Acts. Later New Testament documents indicated problems with division even back then.

So, I want the traditions of the New Testament-era church of Jerusalem, who “devoted themselves to the apostles’ |doctrine” (ESV|KJV, NKJV) per Acts 2:42.

Where can I find that? The Bible. After all, no genuine divinely-instituted tradition would discord with the written Word of God.

One apostle said at Acts 10:43 “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV). That is what is true.

If any later "Tradition" claims `everyone that believeth on him, except those who remain unbaptized, receives remission of sins,' it means `not everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.' That would be a direct contradiction to the "apostles' doctrine."

I will go with the "apostles' doctrine" which had “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV) per Acts 10:43.

 

Tradition

How does 2 Tim 3:14 support "Tradition"? It does not state that what was learned was extra-biblical (i.e. "tradition")

Also, 3:14 is only half of the sentence.

14But as for you,(A) continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15and how(B) from childhood you have been acquainted with(C) the sacred writings,(D) which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

Exactly my point - and 3:15 is only half the picture too. There you have it: Scripture and Tradition. The 'things you have learned' in v14 has to be oral Tradition, otherwise Paul would have referred to it as being in the Scriptures somewhere.

 

In verse 8 Paul makes reference to Old Testament times, and then in vse 10 he clearly is referring to his own letters...my doctrine.

It would appear that Paul is using the letters that must have been circulating amongst the churches in his time.

15. From a child you have known the scriptures..This must be the Old Testament, considered in those days to be the holy scriptures.

I am sure tradition enters into the picture somewhere, but I fail to see anything but sound doctrine exhorted in these passages.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Verse 10 isn't so clear, mate. Your interpretation presumes that Paul's epistolary writings are 100% exhaustive doctrinally.

 

Oh dear. That would be the Pauline churches out, then. Excuse me a moment whilst I go and rip out all his letters from my Bible, as we clearly don't need those any more. Sorry, rness and Jim1999, we can't quote from II Timothy as that comes from a 'divided church'.

 

GE,

What is a ritual?