He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[360watt]

A contradiction in sripture?

No. The opposite of Mark 16:16 is not true. I.e. 'He that is believes and is not baptised is not saved'

The book of John is about assuring believers have eternal life and doesn't mention water baptism much at all.
The book of Romans is about justification by faith in Christ alone and doesn't mention water baptism alot.

So Mark 16:16 need to be put alongside the verses in these books, and not held on it's own.

Same goes for Acts 2:38. It doesn't standalone.

Eternal salvation is, led by Jesus, believing Jesus is God, that He died and rose again, and that by believing in Him you have everlasting life.

Water baptism is as representation/symbol of this happening. As I typed before-- being baptised 'for' the remission of sins, is being baptised for something already happened. Like having a pill 'for' the cold.

Anyway.. I know this has been done to death, but seems popular now for people to think baptism saves eternally. The only kind of salvation it is related to is having a 'salvaged life'.. becoming a faithful believer after eternal salvation. It isn't hooked to eternal salvation. It isn't guaranteed to happen for a believer either.

 

[360watt]

This is a telling video on this topic

 

[mailmandan]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[360watt]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Yes this is put better than I did. (Also my wording was missing the right spelling).

When water baptism is put with receiving eternal life as a condition on receiving it, instead of the focus being on Jesus' payment for our sin... it's put on getting wet. It's a real deception. Like when people put the focus on the works people do in James 2, but these examples are of people who already have faith.

 

[Truther]

A contradiction in sripture?

No. The opposite of Mark 16:16 is not true. I.e. 'He that is believes and is not baptised is not saved'

The book of John is about assuring believers have eternal life and doesn't mention water baptism much at all.
The book of Romans is about justification by faith in Christ alone and doesn't mention water baptism alot.

So Mark 16:16 need to be put alongside the verses in these books, and not held on it's own.

Same goes for Acts 2:38. It doesn't standalone.

Eternal salvation is, led by Jesus, believing Jesus is God, that He died and rose again, and that by believing in Him you have everlasting life.

Water baptism is as representation/symbol of this happening. As I typed before-- being baptised 'for' the remission of sins, is being baptised for something already happened. Like having a pill 'for' the cold.

Anyway.. I know this has been done to death, but seems popular now for people to think baptism saves eternally. The only kind of salvation it is related to is having a 'salvaged life'.. becoming a faithful believer after eternal salvation. It isn't hooked to eternal salvation. It isn't guaranteed to happen for a believer either.

You just tried to debunk Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16.

Not a good look

 

[360watt]

You just tried to debunk Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16.

Not a good look

Well let me put it another way...

Yes.. he that believes and is baptized is saved. And there are many verses that have salvation without baptism.

Is that a contradiction?

No, because the opposite of Mark 16:16 is not true.

 

[Truther]

Well let me put it another way...

Yes.. he that believes and is baptized is saved. And there are many verses that have salvation without baptism.

Is that a contradiction?

No, because the opposite of Mark 16:16 is not true.

So some say you have to be baptized for remission of sins and the other say you don’t have to be baptized at all?

 

[360watt]

So some say you have to be baptized for remission of sins and the other say you don’t have to be baptized at all?

No. The remission of sin happens without water baptism. Water baptism is 'for' this like having a pill 'for' a cold. It's symbolic of Jesus saving someone.. from death to life.

All scriptures say water baptism is symbol and picture of salvation that had already happened.

Context determines this. You judge a doctrine based on the majority of passages. The doubtful passages are put in light of the sure ones.

 

[Truther]

No. The remission of sin happens without water baptism. Water baptism is 'for' this like having a pill 'for' a cold. It's symbolic of Jesus saving someone.. from death to life.

All scriptures say water baptism is symbol and picture of salvation that had already happened.

Context determines this. You judge a doctrine based on the majority of passages. The doubtful passages are put in light of the sure ones.

Then Peter said under them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins….

Should I believe you or Peter?

 

[Truther]

Water baptism is not a pill for a cold in symbolism.

It is being buried with Christ in symbolism.

There is a wee bit of a difference there.

Being buried with Christ in baptism is not in pill form.

 

[360watt]

Water baptism is not a pill for a cold in symbolism.

It is being buried with Christ in symbolism.

There is a wee bit of a difference there.

Being buried with Christ in baptism is not in pill form.

Okay.. what I mean is the baptism in water is for an event already happened. Not that it gives eternal life ..but represents it.

 

[360watt]

This is a good video on the subject

 

[Truther]

Okay.. what I mean is the baptism in water is for an event already happened. Not that it gives eternal life ..but represents it.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is specifically for the remission of sins. That’s what it says. That is how you get eternal life. You have to have remission of sins. You can’t take your sins with you into eternal life. It’s just not gonna work.

 

[Truther]

Then Peter said under them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins….


Don’t leave earth without it.

 

[Truther]

Obey Peter…

Then Peter said under them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins….

… not the screwball with the PhD that is telling you to disobey Peter.

 

[360watt]

Obey Peter…

Then Peter said under them repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins….

… not the screwball with the PhD that is telling you to disobey Peter.

There is no PhD telling me anything. Weigh Peter's statement with numerous verses about eternal salvation thru Romans and the book of John.

 

[Truther]

There is no PhD telling me anything. Weigh Peter's statement with numerous verses about eternal salvation thru Romans and the book of John.

Romans is an epistle to saints that obeyed Acts 2:38. It is their mail. It cannot be read or applied unless a person obeyed Acts 2:38 first.
Per John, the church had not yet started in Acts.

You have all the traits of an Acts skipper.

 

[TomL]

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is specifically for the remission of sins. That’s what it says. That is how you get eternal life. You have to have remission of sins. You can’t take your sins with you into eternal life. It’s just not gonna work.

Repentance is for the remission of sin

Luke 24:47 (UASV) — 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

 

[360watt]

Romans is an epistle to saints that obeyed Acts 2:38. It is their mail. It cannot be read or applied unless a person obeyed Acts 2:38 first.
Per John, the church had not yet started in Acts.

You have all the traits of an Acts skipper.

The local NT church began with Jesus and His disciples and all redeemed has been added to since Adam and Eve!

 

[Truther]

The local NT church began with Jesus and His disciples and all redeemed has been added to since Adam and Eve!

Did the new testament church start before Matthew chapter 16?