Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 2608 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? First Part (Part Zero) . . . Follow-up to the question: "Do you have to be baptized to be saved?" Also, a reply to the note: "But what about those places that it is p...?" Excuse me, but it is not my practice to pick and choose what I like and leave out the rest. . . . Is baptism necessary for salvation? By John MacArthur . . . No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: . . . First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). . . . If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? . . . Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. . . . Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. . . . The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). . . . One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. . . . (To be continued) |
||||||
2 | Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 | 1 Pet 3:21 | jrcannon | 2610 | ||
Okay, I have read through your response, but you didn't answer one vital question, in fact, you ask the very same from me. Let's cover your points one by one. 1. You are right in that those verses you point out speak nothing to the necesity of baptism, but talk about the root core of the salvation process, it is grace through faith. But it doesn't end there, nor can it end there, otherwise you "leave out" unrefutible evidence that baptism is a necessary component of that salvation. You need also be careful to not take out of context these verse and truly examine what the teachings are here. You will find that a majority of these verses deal with the problems between Jew and Gentile and the fact that Gentiles are not circumcised. 2. You point out the fact that Peter refers to baptism at pentecost in chp 2 but not in chp 3. Well, let me turn the point back around once more and ask you the same thing as I asked before, if baptism is not important to salvation, why did he include it in chp 2? To answer your question, probably the reason why is two fold, first a great deal of them probably already heard it in chp. 2 and second, the were dragged away before they had a chance to finish. What would he have said if he would have been able to finish? 3. Your next point you should go back and re-study before everything else. He did speak about baptism and he did baptize. Be care you don't take out of context what he says in 1 Cor. chp 1. He did baptise which he himself points out, but the message that he is getting across is that it is not important who baptized you, in authority issues, but that the body of Chirst is one. He is not down playing baptism at all, in fact I think it is a reinforcement of the idea that baptism is between the person and God and no one else. Don't put things into this passage that are not there. One last thing for this point before I go onto the next, if he wasn't referring to baptism, what was he talking about in Romans 6? 4. In this point, you fall into a very common trap, those were all before pentecost which I stated in my previous note. Jesus had the power to forgive sin as he was, and is God. Only the father has the power to forgive sin, and thus we see several examples of Jesus not only healing but forgiving sin. You should note that all of those occurrances happened after a demonstration of faith by the person, healed for forgiven. What is baptism? Is it not a demonstration of faith? 5. This one is probably your best point and it is the hardest to refute, however, I challenge you to find where it says they were saved, even though they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, if you read on, you will note that they were baptized immediately. Just because a person is filled with the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean that they are saved. We do not have evidence that makes that abundantly clear, you are going on assumption, and not evidence. But like I said before this is the most compelling of your argument so far. However, if it is just this one point, with all of the other evidence that points to the necessity of baptism, assumptions are not enough. 6. If I were to take the same way of examining scripture as you have, then our faith alone does nothing for us, as James 2:26 states. Faith by itself is dead, james tells us, and thus if our faith is dead, how can we ever receive that grace of God? This is a feeble argument that shows no study of the truth in that passage. Don't look to interpret and harmonize, search for the truth and nothing but the truth, being careful to rightly divide the word and give an accurate representation of what is written and not what is assumed or what we want to believe. |
||||||