He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 1Pet 3:15b . . Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a
reason of the hope that is in you.

The only requirement there is to always be ready; we are not required to always
give an answer. In point of fact the Lord restricts our responses to sincere folks
rather than any John Que and/or Jane Doe pumpkin that happens along.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they
may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt
7:6)

Anyway: the Greek word for "hope" in that passage basically pertains to
expectation, viz: it isn't wishful thinking, nor crossing your fingers; no, this kind of
hope is a confident looking forward to taking possession of something that's already
in the bag, viz: it's an anticipating hope, i.e. it doesn't pray for the best, while in
the back of its mind dreading the worst.

When people are uncertain what the future has in store for them-- if there is even
the slightest anxiety or unease --then of course they can't possibly comply with
Peter's instructions for the simple reason that the hope that is in them, if any, is the
wrong kind of hope.

● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

People have absolutely no cause for rejoicing when they're unsure of their afterlife
destination, no, but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.
_

 

[dwight92070]

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.

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

 

[dwight92070]

Tom, you’re like a broken record. Read the rest of Acts 10. Read all the way to the last verse. Then tell me they were not baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. You just think by the blink of an eye you can get remission of sins without doing a thing. Come on Tom.

That's like saying, "You think you can get saved without doing a thing?" Of course, that's what the Bible teaches - at least not any outward physical thing. Salvation is repenting and believing in Jesus in your heart - it is an inward spiritual thing.
Titus 3:5 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."
And no, washing of regeneration does not refer to water baptism. If it did, then that would contradict the first part of the same verse, which says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds (baptism) which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, ..." "washing of regeneration" refers to our sins being washed away by the blood of Jesus.
Have you heard the song, "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus."?
Hebrews 9:14 "how much more will the blood of Jesus Christ, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Heb. 9:22 "and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
1 John 1:7 " ... and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin."
Reve. 1:5 " ... to Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood."
Rom. 5:9 " ... having now been justified by His blood."
Eph. 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ... "
Col. 1:14 " ... in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
1 Cor. 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

 

[dwight92070]

1 Peter 2:9 is a little deeper than that.

In contrast with those who reject Christ and are predestined to "stumble," Peter now describes the chosen people of God. You know the ones, The Elect.

Peter uses language that had been used to describe God's special relationship with Israel. As Israel was, we—Calvinists—are also a chosen race.

We are a spiritual race, in the sense that, in Christ, we share a single spiritual Father. In that same meaning, we are a "holy nation," a specific group of people called out and set apart from all others.

You are obsessed with Calvinism - just like a cultist. We are supposed to be obsessed with Jesus.

 

[dwight92070]

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

If anyone wants those verses, I would be glad to post them. In fact, the 10 verses do not contradict the 213 verses. They simply add the act of being baptized, which Jesus commanded all who have already been saved. Matthew 28:19
Because Jesus commanded that all believers should be baptized, we can safely assume that where salvation occurs in those other 213 verses, baptism follows afterward, even though it is not mentioned. John 4:1

If baptism was a requirement for salvation, then how many of those 213 verses would have mentioned it.? 100%

 

[360watt]

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

Yes, a salvaged life after eternal salvation includes water baptism.

But this is 'saved' as in delivered from troubles rather than eternally saved.

 

[dwight92070]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

Boy, you said a mouthful.

And woe unto them that are denied a baptism with just two people. The baptizee and the baptizor. The c o C has a small delegation in attendence. If the are even willing.

And dont let them know your baptism status or they will start you on the road to hell.

I will say no more.

 

[Doug Brents]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

"How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”" (Rom 10:14-15)
It appears that even God thinks that there must be two, the student and the preacher, hmmm.

 

[dwight92070]

"How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”" (Rom 10:14-15)
It appears that even God thinks that there must be two, the student and the preacher, hmmm.

Really? Who preached to Saul?
What about me? I was saved without a preacher. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but never responded to it, nor even understood it. Later, at 21, God led me to read about the life and teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but I didn't even know where to find that in the Bible. I asked a chaplain. He told me to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So I did and Jesus saved me. I was powerfully moved by the words of Jesus.
So I guess you could say Jesus Himself preached to me. I'm sure that this happens to many people.

So I stand corrected. Doug and the Church of Christ believe it takes three people to get saved. The preacher, the believer, and the baptizer.

The rest of us understand the Bible to say that it takes two. A preacher (which could be the Bible itself or a vision as Saul had) and the believer.

Jesus Himself preached to Saul on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:9-18

So He was saved and commissioned on the same day. Then, three days later, he was baptized.

 

[Doug Brents]

Really? Who preached to Saul?
What about me? I was saved without a preacher. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but never responded to it, nor even understood it. Later, at 21, God led me to read about the life and teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but I didn't even know where to find that in the Bible. I asked a chaplain. He told me to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So I did and Jesus saved me. I was powerfully moved by the words of Jesus.
So I guess you could say Jesus Himself preached to me. I'm sure that this happens to many people.

What a wonderful story. So let me see if I have this right. You (that's one) heard the Gospel preached as a kid (that's two (or more)), then you asked a chaplain (that's three at least), then you read the Scriptures, then you were baptized into Christ (at some point, which is when you were actually saved)(that's four at least).

So I stand corrected. Doug and the Church of Christ

As I have told you before, I do not advocate for the Church of Christ, nor am I a member of the Church of Christ. Nor am I baptist, catholic, or any other religious subdivision. I am a Christ follower.

believe it takes three people to get saved. The preacher, the believer, and the baptizer.

The preacher is frequently the baptizer, as it was in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, and Cornelius, and many others. But it is frequently someone else as it had to have been on Pentecost when over 3000 were baptized into Christ in one day.

The rest of us understand the Bible to say that it takes two. A preacher (which could be the Bible itself or a vision as Saul had) and the believer.

Jesus Himself preached to Saul on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:9-18

So He was saved and commissioned on the same day. Then, three days later, he was baptized.

We have been through this many times and you still don't get it. Saul was not saved on the Road, unless you believe one can be saved yet still be in sin. Saul was still in sin three days later when Ananias showed up. Saul was saved when his sins were washed away in water baptism, just as 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14 and many other passages state.

 

[dwight92070]

In your first answer, it's interesting that you didn't count reading the scripture as proclaiming the gospel. Peter even said that we were born again "through the living and enduring word of God". Also you're not focusing on the topic, which was the number of people required for salvation to happen. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but I was not saved, so you can't count that. Yes, I asked a chaplain where I could find the story of Jesus in the Bible and he told me, but he never preached the gospel to me. So that doesn't count.

Then I read the word of God, which, as Peter said DID save me, but you don't even count that. It your estimation, that's a zero towards getting saved. Finally about 2 weeks later, I was baptized, which you falsely claim was when I was saved.
I'm surprised that you would even admit that I "actually was saved."

I did not say you advocated for the Church of Christ. Where did I say that? But obviously you agree with much of their false doctrine.

Sins don't get "washed away in water baptism". They never did and never will. Those five go-to verses/passages state no such thing. That teaching despises and dishonors what Jesus, shedding His blood on the cross, did to cleanse us from sin.

 

[Doug Brents]

In your first answer, it's interesting that you didn't count reading the scripture as proclaiming the gospel. Peter even said that we were born again "through the living and enduring word of God". Also you're not focusing on the topic, which was the number of people required for salvation to happen. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but I was not saved, so you can't count that. Yes, I asked a chaplain where I could find the story of Jesus in the Bible and he told me, but he never preached the gospel to me. So that doesn't count.

Those all count, because you did not live in an bubble. The cumulative experience of your life all impacts your decisions. Yes, the Word of God does contain what is needed to be born again, but as is evident in many of the people on this forum, it requires a teacher to guide the new learner through it. Otherwise, they come to some completely wrong conclusions, as you have.

Then I read the word of God, which, as Peter said DID save me, but you don't even count that. It your estimation, that's a zero towards getting saved. Finally about 2 weeks later, I was baptized, which you falsely claim was when I was saved.
I'm surprised that you would even admit that I "actually was saved."

So you would say that Naaman was cleansed of leprosy when he decided to go to Jordan. He was already healed when he entered the water.
You would say that the walls of Jericho had already fallen when Israel decided to march around the city as God told them to do. They didn't really need to march around it at all. They had decided to march, so the walls fell and they took the city.
You would say that the widow didn't really need to give her last cake of bread to the prophet. She just needed to decide to, and then her flour and oil would sustain her until the end of the famine.

I got it. You just need to rewrite all of Scripture to fit with your doctrine.

I did not say you advocated for the Church of Christ. Where did I say that? But obviously you agree with much of their false doctrine.

No, I disagree 100% with their false doctrines. But I agree 100% with the doctrines they have correct, just as I agree with the doctrines the catholics get right (which are few and far between). It is not the doctrine of the group I agree with, it is the doctrines that come from Scripture that I agree with. If a group gets something right, I am glad for them. But when they get it wrong, I morn for them.

Sins don't get "washed away in water baptism".

According to Scripture they do.

They never did and never will. Those five go-to verses/passages state no such thing. That teaching despises and dishonors what Jesus, shedding His blood on the cross, did to cleanse us from sin.

No, it does not. Jesus' death and shedding of blood made it possible to have sins removed in the first place. But even He said that sin is not removed without both the Spirit and water. And then His Apostles taught and practiced salvation being received at the point of water baptism.

 

[dwight92070]

I estimate that I have sat under the teaching of over 100 "men (and even some women) of God" since I was saved in 1970 - 55 years ago. One thing I have learned is very clear. I can't believe everything that every one of those "teachers" taught about the Bible and Christianity in general. Some were very good teachers, but even they were wrong on some key points. How do I know they were wrong? Because their teaching or their conclusions contradict the Bible. Sometimes it was their lack of good character that invalidated their "teaching". Others were out and out false teachers teaching anti-Biblical false teachings. Still others were well meaning and had good character, but nonetheless teachings that showed that they didn't understand certain doctrines and principles found in the word.

So, yes, we need people in the body of Christ to teach us. Those people are called "teachers". It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to teach the body of Christ. No one should take on the task of teaching the body of Christ, unless they have been called to do that, and gifted by God to teach. I've heard many "teachers" who have the gift of putting people to sleep, but certainly not teaching. Others stumble through their "message" and leave people more confused than when they started. Some Christians work as teachers in their secular jobs, so they assume that they should also be teachers in the body of Christ. WRONG! Other teachers "teach" as though their OPINIONS about the Bible are just as correct and authoritative as the Bible itself. In their arrogance, they cannot tolerate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

For example, I heard a well-known radio Bible teacher recently say that there are hundreds of Bible prophecies that speak of Christ's 2nd Coming. When I called their program and asked for a list of those verses, they gave me the run-around and ended up totally rejecting my request and ignoring my further inquiries. The truth is that the prophets that prophesied of Christ's coming were almost always prophesying of Christ's 1st coming - not His 2nd coming.

Since you teach false doctrine, you should not be teaching anyone in the Body of Christ.

Obviously, Naaman had faith to be healed by the God of Israel when he first heard from the little Israelite girl that the prophet in Samaria, Elisha, would cure him of his leprosy 2 Kings 5:1-2 long before he washed in Jerusalem - or he would not have acted on what she said.

God told Joshua his plans to bring down Jericho, not all of Israel. Then by faith, Joshua commanded Israel to do according to the plans God gave him. Joshua FIRST believed God, even though God's plan must have seemed silly for your average army commander, and SECOND, he obeyed God. Joshua was not your average military commander. He had faith in God, then he acted in faith and did what God told him to do.

The widow woman had faith in God and reverently feared Him long before we first read about her in 2 Kings 4:1. She said just that in that verse. So she cried out to Elisha, knowing he was a true prophet of God and whatever Elisha told her to do, she was ready to do.

All three of these stories show us the same thing: that first we put our trust in God and anyone who He sends, then second, we obey God and do what He or His servant tells us to do.

The same is true in salvation: First, we believe and are saved. Second we, by faith, do what He says.

It's not mourning we hear from you when others disagree with you. It's condemning them to hell.

What a blatant lie, that according to Scripture, our sins get washed away in water baptism.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." Heb. 9:22 And that blood had to be the blood of Jesus, the sinless Son of God. Water baptism washes away NOTHING, except maybe some dirt on your skin. But it can't wash away ANYTHING in your heart.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, ... cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. 9:14

What a perversion of what Jesus said in John 3. Baptism is not even mentioned in His verbal conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus initiated the subject of childbirth with His statement, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God."
He was saying that their was some similarity between childbirth, being born of water or born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit. In BOTH a NEW CREATION is brought forth, created by God. And that being born of the Spirit is necessary to see and enter into the kingdom of God.

There's no other place in Scripture where baptism is called "being born of water", nor is that it's meaning here.