• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Baptism required for salvation?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Very likely the opposite is true. More people have stopped being Christians after having access to knowledge and arguments they had never heard before.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence to support this?
 
Declan said:
I am taking nothing out of context. Original sin is neither loving, nor merciful; the New Testament has more than one or 2 references to God's Wrath, including that whole book at the end of the Bible. To pretend that God is loving and merciful denies Christian eschatology even under the New Covenant. None of this, however, relates to the the still open question regarding baptism except perhaps as it pertains to the consequences of being wrong in the eyes of God.
Click to expand...

Does a loving father not have to kick out a child who consistently refuses to act rightly in the home and is a threat to himself and the other members of the home? Put another way, how many times does a father have to reach out to try to save that child until he realizes that that child is never going to come willingly?
 
Declan said:
It's Just Me is a self-proclaimed minister who has shown no Biblical knowledge. We do not know if the thief was baptized before crucifixion as Jesus had been, but more importantly, The Old Testament was God's law prior to the death and resurrection and therefore the requirements of salvation set fort in the New Testament did not even apply at the time the thief was executed.
Click to expand...

The requirement for salvation already applied!
The words of Jesus to the thief ensured his salvation.

Verse 42 shows the faith of the thief in Jesus. Let's remember the man was a thief thus he'd been sentenced - and he acknowledged his sin - that shows that faith alone is required!



40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
 
Last edited:
Declan said:
As I have indicated before the thief on the cross was not required to be baptized because the New Covenant did not manifest itself as a mandate upon the religion until Jesus died and was resurrected. Regardless, if Christianity has brands, then which parts of the New Testament only apply to some brands and not other brands?
Click to expand...

It all applies, the question is: What does it mean? It's all about the systematic theology one accepts based on interpretation and reason. Many died as heretics espousing their interpretation... Thankfully, these days we just agree to disagree. We will all know in the end.
 
Declan said:
All time is Biblical Time since it starts in the beginning and ends in the ending. Regardless, if you are speaking of the era of Jesus' life, then the custom still does not address the New Testament issue.
Click to expand...

Eh? I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying, the custom during that time for anyone who convert to a religion is to publicly declare it through baptism.


The New Testament seems to disagree with you.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Read below. Besides, there are numerous verses that clearly indicate baptism is not a requirement for salvation.



Why would Jesus say it was necessary?
Click to expand...

He didn't say you have to be baptized! Furthermore, you're only relying on that verse 3 from that chapter of John 3. I gave you the whole chapter to show you the context. Nicodemus was confused about that, too, and Jesus gave the explanation.

Here is the requirement for salvation, according to Jesus.

John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.



The issue is whether or not their failure to be baptized denies them salvation. So far, it looks to be the case.
Click to expand...

Jesus stipulated what's required for salvation on John 3:16. There is no mention of baptism.

Like I said, it is all about FAITH. If a person refuses to be baptized because he's not sure about Jesus, or he doesn't fully believe - well, only God knows about that, and only He can judge. But that indicate a problem with faith - so maybe that would have an effect. On the other hand, it's easy for any Christian to be assailed by doubts in their weak moments when they're facing problems or disasters in life.
We can't really say how we'll be judged INDIVIDUALLY.
 
countryboy said:
This doesn't support your original statement in any way.
Click to expand...

The original (unsupported) claim I was speaking against was that the internet has led more people to Christianity through increased capability to research. The fact is that Christianity is on the decline in the west while non-affiliation is on the upswing. The greatest change from affiliation to non-affiliation has taken place since the internet has been a thing. This may be correlative instead of causative, but it completely makes sense that access to knowledge and outside opinion would lead people away from their given religion, or just religion in general.
 
tosca1 said:
The requirement for salvation already applied!
The words of Jesus to the thief ensured his salvation.

Verse 42 shows the faith of the thief in Jesus. Let's remember the man was a thief thus he'd been sentenced - and he acknowledged his sin - that shows that faith alone is required!



40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like more than faith.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The original (unsupported) claim I was speaking against was that the internet has led more people to Christianity through increased capability to research. The fact is that Christianity is on the decline in the west while non-affiliation is on the upswing. The greatest change from affiliation to non-affiliation has taken place since the internet has been a thing. This may be correlative instead of causative, but it completely makes sense that access to knowledge and outside opinion would lead people away from their given religion, or just religion in general.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is, as you could just as easily say that the drop would be greater if not for the information that's out on the internet.
 
phattonez said:
It most certainly is, as you could just as easily say that the drop would be greater if not for the information that's out on the internet.
Click to expand...

...based on what?

Hearing other stories might make one inclined to take up other beliefs, but increased access leading to a decline of one particular belief? If you're going to attempt to make the case that it could be even worse without the internet, thats going to take some pretty robust evidence, facts, and statistical analysis. It also doesn't bode well for the belief system as a whole if your argument is that it could be even worse without the internet.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...based on what?
Click to expand...

And based on what do you declare causation?

Hearing other stories might make one inclined to take up other beliefs, but increased access leading to a decline of one particular belief? If you're going to attempt to make the case that it could be even worse without the internet, thats going to take some pretty robust evidence, facts, and statistical analysis. It also doesn't bode well for the belief system as a whole if your argument is that it could be even worse without the internet.
Click to expand...

And you're making the assumption that increased knowledge is leading people away from the faith, while providing no evidence of that other than some lame correlation to a trend that started before the Internet even became popular. You're going to have to try harder.
 
Declan said:
In John 3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Since it is agreed in mainstream Christian dogma that only another Christian can baptize someone, this creates a situation in which one is dependent on another person for their salvation, thereby making them your overlord in relation to your access to heaven. Seems like a pyramid scheme at best, but doesn't it contradict the Bible that the only way to God is through Jesus as the only way to Jesus and God is through another person who already has been Baptized before you? Your preacher or whoever dunks or sprinkles you is, in effect, a god in relation to your salvation. This would contradict the position that your faith is between you and god because you cannot have access to god under Christian dogma and the Bible unless another person performs a ritual upon you.
Click to expand...

There's a spiritual baptism that's a must. It's not just the water.

"Water baptism alone does not save a person. The Holy Spirit, given to an individual by Christ, is the “Seal of Redemption” (Ephesians 1:13-14) that signifies who belongs to God. So in Acts 8:15-16 we see an example where people received the Holy Spirit after baptism."

"Circumcision was only an outward ritual, or “seal” of what had already occurred in the heart of Abraham. He was justified by faith (Genesis 15:6). In the New Testament, the ritual of water baptism is only meant to be symbolic of what God has already done, or is doing, in a person’s heart – the “circumcised heart” – which is then “sealed” by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit."

Here's a real good article on Baptism.

What is Baptism? « The Righter Report

p.s. The Holy Spirit is God (Acts chapter 5).
 
phattonez said:
And based on what do you declare causation?



And you're making the assumption that increased knowledge is leading people away from the faith, while providing no evidence of that other than some lame correlation to a trend that started before the Internet even became popular. You're going to have to try harder.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose Christianity's number are down? And why do you think this could be even worse without the internet?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Why do you suppose Christianity's number are down? And why do you think this could be even worse without the internet?
Click to expand...

Numbers are down because of privation of the true faith. When Christianity is watered down to make it seem exactly the same as the world, well then what do you need Christianity for?
 
Logicman said:
There's a spiritual baptism that's a must. It's not just the water.

"Water baptism alone does not save a person. The Holy Spirit, given to an individual by Christ, is the “Seal of Redemption” (Ephesians 1:13-14) that signifies who belongs to God. So in Acts 8:15-16 we see an example where people received the Holy Spirit after baptism."
Click to expand...

This is Confirmation.
 
phattonez said:
When Christianity is watered down to make it seem exactly the same as the world, well then what do you need Christianity for?
Click to expand...

So, you're saying there's no point to it the closer it gets to reality?

Well, geez, I couldn't agree more.
 
Declan said:
In John 3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely this verse is referring to baptism. It is more likely that it is reaching back to the promise of Ezekiel 36 which speaks of a spiritual "washing" that accompanies the arrival of the holy spirit. Titus 3:5 also refers to a spiritual washing. Ephesians 5:26 makes it most clear "...that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (so it is not being dunked in water that does the washing, it's the word that does the washing). Thus, the term born "of water and of the spirit" is most likely a reference to a spiritual washing, not a physical one, and a confirmation of what was prophesied about in Ezekiel.

The strongest evidence we have is the thief on the cross. He didn't have a chance to be baptized, yet Jesus told him he would be in heaven that very day.

Declan said:
This would contradict the position that your faith is between you and god
Click to expand...

That would be an unscriptural position. Contradicting it is fine and doesn't require convoluted interpretations of baptism. The bible contradicts this position throughout the entirety of scriptures. The idea that your faith is between you and God is a modern invention that is based on western ideals of independence and is wholly alien to the scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, you're saying there's no point to it the closer it gets to reality?

Well, geez, I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

Secular agnosticism is reality? When was that determined?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, you're saying there's no point to it the closer it gets to reality?

Well, geez, I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

wow you couldn't be more incorrect. nor could you strawman what he said enough.
 
Declan said:
In John 3:5, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Since it is agreed in mainstream Christian dogma that only another Christian can baptize someone, this creates a situation in which one is dependent on another person for their salvation, thereby making them your overlord in relation to your access to heaven. Seems like a pyramid scheme at best, but doesn't it contradict the Bible that the only way to God is through Jesus as the only way to Jesus and God is through another person who already has been Baptized before you? Your preacher or whoever dunks or sprinkles you is, in effect, a god in relation to your salvation. This would contradict the position that your faith is between you and god because you cannot have access to god under Christian dogma and the Bible unless another person performs a ritual upon you.
Click to expand...

Good thing baptism isn't a requirement for salvation.

it is simply a show of faith to other people that you are a Christian.
 
it's just me said:
John was not a Christian, strictly speaking, and he baptized a lot of people, including Christ himself. Also, the verse says "water AND the Spirit". Important distinction.

That's the usual way. If the thief on the cross next to Jesus was ever baptized, we don't know about it, yet he made it into the Kingdom by faith and by the words of Christ.
Click to expand...
If we're going to use the thief on the cross as the definitive example of the way to salvation, then it seems to me we ought to at least acknowledge in his example the title given him as part of that distinct example - i.e. the thief "on the cross" and recognize if the thief IS an example then BOTH his expression of faith AND his having actually died with Christ are relevant.

Of course, to use his example thus it becomes immediately evident how problematic his example is insofar as he is the ONLY one in history to have actually physically died with Christ.

Paul solves this obvious dilemma though by giving us a definition of Christian baptism in Romans 6 - "...do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life..."

Then there are Jesus' commands in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:18ff which I daresay He meant.

Then there is Peter's response to those he'd just convicted of crucifying Jesus in Acts 2:38ff.

Then there are the examples in Acts of people becoming Christians - the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, Paul's own conversion in Acts 9, Cornelius' conversion at the end of Acts 10, Lydia's conversion in Acts 16, the jailor's conversion at the end of that same chapter, and so on.

Then there is the question of where, Scripturally, we are told when and how we receive the gift of God's Holy Spirit to dwell in us? Cf. Acts 2 again and Acts 19.

I think it very dangerous to imply (and even more dangerous that anyone would dare teach) that baptism is unnecessary - for to do so is to contradict Jesus' commands, Peter's answer, Paul's explanations, and Luke's numerous examples.

Denominations can wrangle about the mode, the timing, the purpose, whether it's a "work" or not, etc. and etc. - and they've been doing so for centuries, but about it's importance and necessity? I don't think there's any room for wrangling there - least wise not on the pitifully weak example of the one person in history who actually was crucified with Jesus. If anything, his example ought to drive us all to our knees for some substitute opportunity to be able to experience what he, and he alone experienced - the opportunity to actually be crucified with Jesus, that we might walk in newness of life too like he'd been promised.

What IS "required" for salvation?
Faith certainly - John 3:16, Gal 3:26, etc.
Confession - Rom 10:17
Repentence - Acts 2:38
Grace - Eph 2:8f
Endurance - Mt 24:13
God's Mercy - Tit 3:5
Love of the truth - 2 Thess 2:10
The gospel - 1 Cor 15:1ff
Perseverance - Lk 21:19
etc. etc., and of course, baptism I Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38

"The SUM of Thy Word is truth..." Ps 119:160
 
ludin said:
Good thing baptism isn't a requirement for salvation.

it is simply a show of faith to other people that you are a Christian.
Click to expand...
Verse please.
 
EdwinWillers said:
If we're going to use the thief on the cross as the definitive example of the way to salvation, then it seems to me we ought to at least acknowledge in his example the title given him as part of that distinct example - i.e. the thief "on the cross" and recognize if the thief IS an example then BOTH his expression of faith AND his having actually died with Christ are relevant.

Of course, to use his example thus it becomes immediately evident how problematic his example is insofar as he is the ONLY one in history to have actually physically died with Christ.

Paul solves this obvious dilemma though by giving us a definition of Christian baptism in Romans 6 - "...do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life..."

Then there are Jesus' commands in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:18ff which I daresay He meant.

Then there is Peter's response to those he'd just convicted of crucifying Jesus in Acts 2:38ff.

Then there are the examples in Acts of people becoming Christians - the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, Paul's own conversion in Acts 9, Cornelius' conversion at the end of Acts 10, Lydia's conversion in Acts 16, the jailor's conversion at the end of that same chapter, and so on.

Then there is the question of where, Scripturally, we are told when and how we receive the gift of God's Holy Spirit to dwell in us? Cf. Acts 2 again and Acts 19.

I think it very dangerous to imply (and even more dangerous that anyone would dare teach) that baptism is unnecessary - for to do so is to contradict Jesus' commands, Peter's answer, Paul's explanations, and Luke's numerous examples.

Denominations can wrangle about the mode, the timing, the purpose, whether it's a "work" or not, etc. and etc. - and they've been doing so for centuries, but about it's importance and necessity? I don't think there's any room for wrangling there - least wise not on the pitifully weak example of the one person in history who actually was crucified with Jesus. If anything, his example ought to drive us all to our knees for some substitute opportunity to be able to experience what he, and he alone experienced - the opportunity to actually be crucified with Jesus, that we might walk in newness of life too like he'd been promised.

What IS "required" for salvation?
Faith certainly - John 3:16, Gal 3:26, etc.
Confession - Rom 10:17
Repentence - Acts 2:38
Grace - Eph 2:8f
Endurance - Mt 24:13
God's Mercy - Tit 3:5
Love of the truth - 2 Thess 2:10
The gospel - 1 Cor 15:1ff
Perseverance - Lk 21:19
etc. etc., and of course, baptism I Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38

"The SUM of Thy Word is truth..." Ps 119:160
Click to expand...

Not at all, somewhere in this mishegoss I posted that baptism by water and the Spirit is the usual way, this is an unusual way. Pentecostals have blown the "Spirit" part of it all out of proportion by insisting that baptism of the Spirit means you babble incoherently in a way no one understands, fundamentalists insist that baptism is only valid if you are dunked completely under the water. So who's right?

I agree with you in principle, but I say that how you start is less important than how you finish. And this is not to blow off the sacraments, God forbid, but the Word of God needs to be taken as a whole.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Verse please.
Click to expand...

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized yet he made it into heaven.
baptism alone can't save you.

only faith in Christ and the repentance of sin can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom