Is baptism essential to salvation

Since: Aug 14

Nigeria, Africa

#243 Aug 29, 2014
Dave P wrote:
The problem here seems to me that word "essential" or necessary. We draw battle lines that God never intended us to draw. The person who believes H2O is THE point of salvation and without it one is doomed to hell absolutely make baptism a sacrament, a ritual that if done improperly condemns.
I have equal issues with the men who stand up and emphatically state "No it isn't!". Is it Gods will that men be baptized? If so do it. If it is, doesn't that make it necessary?
If you think it isn't necessary, don't be baptized and see what Jesus says to you later. If you think it is, show us where perfect knowledge and performance is required.
can we get off this water salvation deal. Peter was not connecting water and remission. they had faith before they were baptized which caused them to repent. Water baptism come as a result of repenting which I mean that as an act that is done not to be saved but an act because repentance occurred.
Eyeseaewe

Chicago, IL

#244 Aug 29, 2014
The Answer wrote:
The Lord said baptism (imersion in water) is a part of the gospel (Mark 16:15,16).
Those verses are believed to be an addition in the longer version . If the oldest versions of scripture have left out verses and there is or was a older copy somewhere out there then it would be a possibility the more recent versions are correct. WE HAVE NOT FOUND A OLD COPY OF THE MARK WITH 16:15,16 IF IT EVER EXISTED. It is most likely (Mark 16:15,16) are additions and our oldest versions were not changed which would have to be the case if those verses are part of scripture. Without that verse you have no link to salvation by water baptism.

Since: Aug 14

Nigeria, Africa

#245 Aug 29, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
<quoted text>Those verses are believed to be an addition in the longer version . If the oldest versions of scripture have left out verses and there is or was a older copy somewhere out there then it would be a possibility the more recent versions are correct. WE HAVE NOT FOUND A OLD COPY OF THE MARK WITH 16:15,16 IF IT EVER EXISTED. It is most likely (Mark 16:15,16) are additions and our oldest versions were not changed which would have to be the case if those verses are part of scripture. Without that verse you have no link to salvation by water baptism.
Not to mention the verse after that.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#246 Aug 30, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
<quoted text>Those verses are believed to be an addition in the longer version . If the oldest versions of scripture have left out verses and there is or was a older copy somewhere out there then it would be a possibility the more recent versions are correct. WE HAVE NOT FOUND A OLD COPY OF THE MARK WITH 16:15,16 IF IT EVER EXISTED. It is most likely (Mark 16:15,16) are additions and our oldest versions were not changed which would have to be the case if those verses are part of scripture. Without that verse you have no link to salvation by water baptism.
If it was added-who is responsible for it?
Eyeseaewe

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#247 Aug 30, 2014
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was added-who is responsible for it?
I don't know. If we have more two versions (to keep it simple) we can come to no other conclusion than there has been a change made. There are no verses missing as these are two completely different endings of Mark. The oldest version must be given at the very least equal consideration. As I said it is possible we may find a older transcript with the longer ending of Mark some day but that has not happened. To make a doctrine on one verse that is suspect is not a good idea in my opinion. To consider the Catholic tradition with their track record as a church is just as irresponsible, so what do we do other than be honest with what we have?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#248 Aug 30, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. If we have more two versions (to keep it simple) we can come to no other conclusion than there has been a change made. There are no verses missing as these are two completely different endings of Mark. The oldest version must be given at the very least equal consideration. As I said it is possible we may find a older transcript with the longer ending of Mark some day but that has not happened. To make a doctrine on one verse that is suspect is not a good idea in my opinion. To consider the Catholic tradition with their track record as a church is just as irresponsible, so what do we do other than be honest with what we have?
Ah-ha- you just read my mind:-)
Dave P

Plummers Landing, KY

#249 Aug 30, 2014
Down the rabbit hole already. The issue isn't the ending of Mark, or what comes first faith repentance etc. We want to ARGUE about the necessity of baptism or if forgiveness is tied to it. My simple point:
Is baptism expected of every follower of Christ? Yes.
Is it the will of God? Yes.
What would happen if we WILLFULLY decide "baptism isn't necessary for me to do"?
Notice I think grace is possible for those for certain reasons cannot be baptized at a certain time. But for the average person who just decides they're not gonna do it and it isn't needed? How about those Elmer Gantrys out there shouting from the rooftops "No it isn't!". Does God honor willful disobedience? Do you REALLY have FAITH if you say baptism isn't necessary and I'm not doing it? No.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#250 Aug 30, 2014
Dave P wrote:
Down the rabbit hole already. The issue isn't the ending of Mark, or what comes first faith repentance etc. We want to ARGUE about the necessity of baptism or if forgiveness is tied to it. My simple point:
Is baptism expected of every follower of Christ? Yes.
Is it the will of God? Yes.
What would happen if we WILLFULLY decide "baptism isn't necessary for me to do"?
Notice I think grace is possible for those for certain reasons cannot be baptized at a certain time. But for the average person who just decides they're not gonna do it and it isn't needed? How about those Elmer Gantrys out there shouting from the rooftops "No it isn't!". Does God honor willful disobedience? Do you REALLY have FAITH if you say baptism isn't necessary and I'm not doing it? No.
Good points. There is this lady in our church who was sprinkled as young woman in another church. Because we do a lot of water baptisms in our church she asked "do I have to get water baptized by immersion?" I responded to her that it is an obedience issue, so yes you should. Another old lady spoke up saying "no you don't unless you want to". I think she was an ex Methodist. To this day she has not obeyed in water baptism. I can't with good conscience condemn her, but I think it is foolish to resist.

Here is the real reason she did not want to be water baptized-I think. She is now in her 60's and it would be uncomfortable to go through getting wet, messing up her hair and changing clothes.

That being said, it is not a salvation issue. All of us deal with our own disobedience issues. There is no such thing as obedience regeneration, that would require perfect obedience. By/through our obedience we cannot erase our own sin. The only test we must pass is having the faith that Jesus is the promised Messiah who paid the penalty for our sins.

If faith does not produce a change then maybe it was not genuine faith. But who am, as one sinner to another to judge him or her?

What if we willfully decide to disobey just one of the commandments, or even the coc law of church attendance on wednesdays, are we not in the same boat? No one gets saved and then never commits another act of disobedience.

1 john 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Eyeseaewe

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#251 Aug 30, 2014
Dave P wrote:
Down the rabbit hole already. The issue isn't the ending of Mark, or what comes first faith repentance etc. We want to ARGUE about the necessity of baptism or if forgiveness is tied to it. My simple point:
Is baptism expected of every follower of Christ? Yes.
Is it the will of God? Yes.
What would happen if we WILLFULLY decide "baptism isn't necessary for me to do"?
Notice I think grace is possible for those for certain reasons cannot be baptized at a certain time. But for the average person who just decides they're not gonna do it and it isn't needed? How about those Elmer Gantrys out there shouting from the rooftops "No it isn't!". Does God honor willful disobedience? Do you REALLY have FAITH if you say baptism isn't necessary and I'm not doing it? No.
I am not sure you understand what I am saying. "Is baptism essential to salvation" The Mark verses are the main verses used to justify the subject of this thread so they are very much the issue. I am saying they are based on questionable scriptures. Without the Mark verses they really don't have much of a case for the "water baptism saves" doctrine. If anyone was honest with scripture there would be no other conclusion than the doctrine cannot be based upon Mark.
Dave P

Plummers Landing, KY

#252 Aug 30, 2014
Disagree Eye. Acts 2:38, John 3, Romans 6, Galatians 3, 1 Peter 3:21, Ephesians 4, Colossians 2. Being coc I know all of the texts. Water baptism saving doesn't rely on one verse theology. You can take those verses wrongly. But its not a one verse theology. Don't forget all the OT passages used to justify the baptismal regeneration idea.
Mike_Peterson

Louisville, MS

#253 Aug 30, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. If we have more two versions (to keep it simple) we can come to no other conclusion than there has been a change made. There are no verses missing as these are two completely different endings of Mark. The oldest version must be given at the very least equal consideration. As I said it is possible we may find a older transcript with the longer ending of Mark some day but that has not happened. To make a doctrine on one verse that is suspect is not a good idea in my opinion. To consider the Catholic tradition with their track record as a church is just as irresponsible, so what do we do other than be honest with what we have?
You still have what the Church gave us.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#254 Aug 30, 2014
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

To bad catholics don't believe it-they think they created it. Just goes to prove that God can use a donkey.

27When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick. 28And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29Then Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now."…

If God can speak through a donkey, he can speak through a catholic even when the catholic cannot understand it himself.
Eyeseaewe

Morehead, KY

#255 Aug 30, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
You still have what the Church gave us.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts.(1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (&#1488; and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.


So you are saying the church made the addition? It would not surprise me in the least.
Eyeseaewe

UK

#256 Aug 30, 2014
Dave P wrote:
Disagree Eye. Acts 2:38, John 3, Romans 6, Galatians 3, 1 Peter 3:21, Ephesians 4, Colossians 2. Being coc I know all of the texts. Water baptism saving doesn't rely on one verse theology. You can take those verses wrongly. But its not a one verse theology. Don't forget all the OT passages used to justify the baptismal regeneration idea.
A lot of questionable doctrines have come from these verses. Tongue speaking, serpent handling, laying hands on the sick and healing them, drinking rat poison and not getting sick and water baptism salvation are some of the doctrines and practices coming from this addition. I guess you are a serpent handler and tongue speaker also since you are from Kentucky.
Eyeseaewe

North York, Canada

#257 Aug 30, 2014
If you do not do the snake handling and tongue speaking are you lacking faith? If you read all the verses added together you might conclude those that were baptized and could not lay hands on the sick and heal them were not saved. Can't speak in tongues? You must be doing something wrong or are you just not saved?
Eyeseaewe

Germany

#258 Aug 30, 2014
I wouldn't want to put my faith in salvation in being dunked in water although I have done that for years and continue to this day. I have been saved many times by this doctrine of water salvation. I personally have no faith in any of my dunkings for my salvation , I know that sounds sinful to many but that just wasn't what saved me. You are welcome to my share of water Dave if it will make you feel any better. I am looking to the blood of Jesus for my salvation. It's like going for the GOLD.
Mike_Peterson

Louisville, MS

#259 Aug 31, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
I wouldn't want to put my faith in salvation in being dunked in water although I have done that for years and continue to this day. I have been saved many times by this doctrine of water salvation. I personally have no faith in any of my dunkings for my salvation , I know that sounds sinful to many but that just wasn't what saved me. You are welcome to my share of water Dave if it will make you feel any better. I am looking to the blood of Jesus for my salvation. It's like going for the GOLD.
Whoever hears the Church Jesus started hears Jesus and the Father who sent him.

For 1800 years all Christians believed you are born again thru baptism. Jesus specifically told us that.

He taught by parables and show and tell.

He allowed himself to be baptized to demonstrate the importance.

Don't forget about dove and HS.

Baptism is Christianity 101. The 1800s movement ended that for the low Enders
Eyeseaewe

Germany

#260 Aug 31, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever hears the Church Jesus started hears Jesus and the Father who sent him.
For 1800 years all Christians believed you are born again thru baptism. Jesus specifically told us that.
Whoever hears the church will hear the word of God. Jesus did not specifically tell us we would be born again thru water baptism. The bible tells us something completely different.
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
He taught by parables and show and tell.
He allowed himself to be baptized to demonstrate the importance. Yes he allowed himself to be baptised
Yes, he allowed himself to be baptized by John. Many were baptized by John with the baptism of repentance. Was Jesus saved when John baptized him? Was the others baptized by John saved prior to the establishment of the new covenant by Jesus?
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget about dove and HS.
Baptism is Christianity 101. The 1800s movement ended that for the low Enders
The Roman Catholic church has failed miserably at teaching baptism as anyone can see by your post. Not only have they failed to teach it they have failed to teach their version of it. Don't blame the Protestant churches for your failures as Catholics. The Protestants are only a result of Catholic failures. Try teaching the truth and you won' t have a problem.
Eyeseaewe

Germany

#261 Aug 31, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever hears the Church Jesus started hears Jesus and the Father who sent him.
For 1800 years all Christians believed you are born again thru baptism. Jesus specifically told us that.
He taught by parables and show and tell.
He allowed himself to be baptized to demonstrate the importance.
Don't forget about dove and HS.
Baptism is Christianity 101. The 1800s movement ended that for the low Enders
You claim the church invented the bible. We have different endings of Mark. Anyone with half a brain (Yes, God gave us a brain ) knows that if we have multiple endings that there are some versions that are wrong. Since you claim the Catholic church gave us these versions please tell us which are the wrong versions. That should not be a hard problem for you. The hard task I would think would be telling us why you gave us different versions.
Dave P

Olive Hill, KY

#262 Aug 31, 2014
Eyeseaewe wrote:
<quoted text>A lot of questionable doctrines have come from these verses. Tongue speaking, serpent handling, laying hands on the sick and healing them, drinking rat poison and not getting sick and water baptism salvation are some of the doctrines and practices coming from this addition. I guess you are a serpent handler and tongue speaker also since you are from Kentucky.
You never took your eye off mark 16 at all eye. Even the least educated coc member can give you way more than just Mark 16 for water salvation. Forgot Titus 3:5 in that list.

Snake handler and tongue speaker? You are uninformed eye. Try Tennessee and West Virginia.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How many of the 10 commandments have you broken? (Feb '12) Thu William 147
i want to be Christian.can i ? (May '15) Apr 24 Barnsweb 9
Speak Out Bassett Virginia !!!! (Jul '15) Apr 18 Bill 6
My girl Apr 18 Bill 3
Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left... (May '12) Apr 8 James A Farmer 45
Need help finding friend Mar '17 J Collins 1
the church of Christ insider discussion boards (Aug '10) Mar '17 Democrappy ... 12

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages