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? (One.) | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 2714 | ||
JVH, you have posted a well-researched dissertation on baptism, and I concur with you in your conclusion, and with your reasoning that led to it: The New Testament does not teach that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation. I'm thinkig about the man on the cross, one of two criminals who were hanged alongside Jesus, who said in his hour of death, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." What was Jesus' response -- was it something about figuring out a way to get the man down from the cross and finding some water so he could be baptized and thus be saved? The record is clear what Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23).It may sound trite and simplistic, but I'll say it anyway: Jesus saves, water doesn't. The corpus of New Testament teaching confirms this. It is always a grave mistake to base a major doctrine upon an isolated verse or two of Scripture without taking the whole body (corpus) of teaching on the subject into full and careful consideration. It is quite possible to lift a Bible verse out of its context, call it a "proof text," and thereby extrapolate an infinite number of bizarre doctrines. "Accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) is a fearful responsibility of every Christian. | ||||||
2 | Is baptism needed for salvation? (One.) | 1 Pet 3:21 | arrow1 | 113581 | ||
Reply to Hank, How can anyone possibly refer to the thief on the cross as reason baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not necessary. How can you make that a requirement of the thief when 1st of all Jesus had not yet been resurrected, and 2nd the Great Commission has not yet taken place. The thief was still under the old covenant. If you so easily use this as an argument against the need for baptism in Jesus name(which it clearly has nothing at all to do with it) could it be quite possible you're incorrect about other views on doctrine. |
||||||