Water baptism--required for salvation?

[Dublagent66]

Here's a good question.  If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?

[Chino]

Here's a good question.  If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?

You should be.

[yorost]

If someone thinks baptism is a guarantee of salvation then sure, but I don't think that is a prominent belief.  Otherwise, it just comes down to the same topics on what it takes for salvation.

[Seventh Son]

Here's a good question.  If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?

I would say no. After all, if you no longer believe, you reject god (At least the Christian god) anyway.

[yeshaberto]

Here's a good question.  If I was baptized as a kid, but no longer believe in it, am I still saved?

that question points to the ritualistic aspect of baptism...there is nothing magical about the act itself, it is the obedience and faith of the heart represented in the act.  Scripture is clear that we are saved by faith.  Faith leads us to obey, which in this context includes baptism. 

[j]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

Does it?  Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google.  Hence being a KJV.

But the point stands.  Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'.  The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.

Of course the sacrifice of Jesus is what brings salvation, but does that mean that we don't have to do *anything* to participate in that sacrifice, or accept it, etc?

Baptism is an important part of the Christian walk of course, but by no means is it required for salvation, which is what the OP is asking.  Baptism is a symbol of the 'old man' (which Paul talks about in Romans) dying, giving birth to new creation in Christ Jesus.  When you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, the old sinful nature is put to death; baptism is both a symbol of that and a public declaration of your intent to follow Jesus with the rest of your life.

Well, it's really *not* important at all if it's meaningless and has nothing to do with salvation.  Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things: is it all just kind of "eh, do it if you want, but once you've "accepted me as your lord and savior", you're really done, so take it or leave it"?  And as an aside, the whole "accepting Jesus into your heart" being some kind of central ritual to Christianity doesn't really make sense biblically, because the passages used to support it are usually referring to baptism.  As in, I think they're supposed to go together.

If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant.  God's grace is enough.

You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"?  That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.

Not that I disagree: like I said, I doubt God is so rigid that he doesn't look on a person's heart and judge each person accordingly.  But that doesn't mean there aren't things that we're NORMALLY expected to do in obedience to him.

-J

[Ħ]

12"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

If baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, what else would have saved Paul?  He was praying to God, obviously moved by the experience.  He fasted for three whole days.  He was a devout Jew, well versed in the Law of Moses.  He had every other base covered, but Ananias still asked, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." 

Although, it is worthy to note that Ananias was not commanded by God to baptize.  Playing devil's advocate, it could have been false judgement on Ananias's part.

You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"?  That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.

This really struck out to me as a good point.  Obviously, all Christians still have the flesh, and the flesh hates God and his Word.  I like the doctrine that teaches that we are saved by Christ's faith and not our own.  (Not to be confused with the Salvation-for-all doctrine.)  I don't think any Christian that's ever lived was truly 100% committed.

Good news--a friend's friend's dad is a pastor of a church that does not think baptism is necessary.  He holds a Q&A on Wednesday.  Apparently, they delve into the Word a lot.  I'll be sure to ask him about baptism and take good notes, and report to you all if there is anything new to add to what's already been said.

[sneakyblueberry]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

Does it?  Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google.  Hence being a KJV.

But the point stands.  Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'.  The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.

Of course the sacrifice of Jesus is what brings salvation, but does that mean that we don't have to do *anything* to participate in that sacrifice, or accept it, etc?

We accept the sacrifice by accepting Jesus into our heart.  Baptism is not a means of salvation, it is an act that comes out of salvation.  It is an act which renounces the ways of the past and a public declaration of a change of allegiance, i.e turning one's heart to God.  Galatians 3:26 says that it is an act of joining the body of Christ i.e the people of God.  So again, I think baptism comes out of salvation and it is an important part of the discipleship process, but I can't find anywhere in the bible that explicitly says that it is required for salvation; that comes from the cross and the cross alone.

Well, it's really *not* important at all if it's meaningless and has nothing to do with salvation.  Jesus commanded us to do a lot of things: is it all just kind of "eh, do it if you want, but once you've "accepted me as your lord and savior", you're really done, so take it or leave it"?  And as an aside, the whole "accepting Jesus into your heart" being some kind of central ritual to Christianity doesn't really make sense biblically, because the passages used to support it are usually referring to baptism.  As in, I think they're supposed to go together.

So just because it is not required for salvation it is meaningless?  True, there are lots of commands that Jesus/the bible gives us, but not all of them are centred around salvation; does that make them all meaningless?  Not at all, they are all important facets of the Christian life.  The only command that is required for salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord.  John 1:12 says "To all who recieved him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".

I totally agree that they are meant to go together (baptism is usually done at or near the beggining of someone's Christian walk, after their repentance and their acceptance of Christ), but the question that the OP is asking is whether it is required for salvation, which I don't believe it is.

If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant.  God's grace is enough.

You mean, God's grace is enough, as long as they have "loved God with every fibre of their being and accepted the atonement Jesus gives for their sins"?  That's a "work" in itself, just like baptism.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all.  The first part was meant as a hypothetical situation, to illustrate why I believe baptism by water is not required for salvation.  What I'm saying is, if a person receives Christ, and dies a minute later without having the chance to be baptised, they are still saved because baptism itself is an outworking of one's desire to follow Christ, NOT a requirement to ensure salvation.

When I say God's grace is enough, I mean that there are no boundaries to God's love, all we have to do to receive salvation is receive Christ, believe in him and his sacrifice and the gift of forgiveness, grace, love and (John 3:16).  It has nothing to do with 'works' (Ephesians 2:8-9).  It is not bound by rituals or acts.  All we have to do is receive.  Of course, given the chance, we are to do all that we are commanded to do by Jesus, but above all else, God sees our hearts and thats what matters the most to him (1st Samuel 16:7).

[Fiery Winds]

How do we accept Jesus into our heart? 

[sneakyblueberry]

Pray, acknowledging him as Lord and saviour, repenting of your sins and sinful nature and asking for his cleansing, and asking Him to come into your life, opening your heart to receive his gifts of mercy, forgiveness, love etc and receiving his Holy Spirit.

EDIT:  After reading FW's first post this suddenly occured to me:  I think an important thing to acknowledge that I haven't before is the difference between baptism in the Holy Spirit and baptism with water.  I think you'll find that most times the NT refers to baptism, it is referring to baptism in the Holy Spirit.  Luke 3:16 (NIV) 'John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."  The whole thing of baptising with the Holy Spirit happens when you accept Jesus into your life and receive the Holy Spirit.  When the disciples are baptizing with water it is done as a part of 'making disciples' as I explained above. 

I don't claim to have all the answers, in fact I am pretty much a dumbass irl.  Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Fiery Winds]

Didn't Paul do most if not all of that?  He fasted for three days, was obviously a changed repentant man, was praying during that time, acknowledged that Jesus was Lord during the vision, etc.  I've heard conversion experience testimonials that sound very similar (I'm not doubting their experience) and just stop there.  If praying and repenting was all that was necessary, then why did Ananias tell him that he needed to wash away his sins through baptism, which we are explicitly told is how we call on his name? 

[sneakyblueberry]

I think the baptism in question is baptism of the H.S:

Acts 9:17 (NIV) [Ananias] placing his hands on Saul said: "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me so that you may be filed with the Holy Spirit."  Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes and he could see again.  He got up and was baptised.

Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit.  If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story.  But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.

[Fiery Winds]

Yes, the Holy Spirit plays a huge part as well, but there is a difference between being filled with the H.S. and receiving the gift of the H.S.  Those who were able to perform miracles were filled with the H.S., which I think we agree required laying on of hands to pass on and that not all Christians could do.  However, all those who are baptized receive the gift of the H.S. which is Salvation.

You mention the absence of water, yet if you go back one chapter in Acts, we see Phillip preaching Jesus to the eunuch which prompts him to want to be baptized in water. 

[sneakyblueberry]

Hmmm, interesting.  I would've thought that the gift of the H.S was H.S himself?  The helper that Jesus said he would send?  I'm not sure I can see the gift of the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit being two different things, to me they are one and the same.   Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is being filled with the Holy Spirit, I would think. 

Yep, I'm aware that Philip baptised the Ethiopian in nearby water.  In an interesting footnote in my NIV bible there is a verse 37 that is left out for some reason.  The passage, including the part left out reads: Acts 8:36-38, 'As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said "Look, here is water.  Why shouldn't I be baptized?"  Philip said "If you believe with all your heart, you may."  The eunuch answered. "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God."  And he gave orders to stop the chariot...

The bolded part is verse 37 which is left out for some reason.  Wow, I had never even seen this before until just now!  So the eunuch confesses Jesus as lord before he is baptised.  First, the acceptance of Jesus as Lord, and then baptism with water.  Interesting!  I wonder why that was left out

[bosk1]

Interesting!  I wonder why that was left out

Same reason as this:  https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17249.msg617907#msg617907

[j]

We accept the sacrifice by accepting Jesus into our heart.

What is your basis for this belief?

Baptism is not a means of salvation, it is an act that comes out of salvation.  It is an act which renounces the ways of the past and a public declaration of a change of allegiance, i.e turning one's heart to God.  Galatians 3:26 says that it is an act of joining the body of Christ i.e the people of God.  So again, I think baptism comes out of salvation and it is an important part of the discipleship process, but I can't find anywhere in the bible that explicitly says that it is required for salvation; that comes from the cross and the cross alone.

I can agree with most of that, at least the part that baptism is not a "means of salvation".  My theology in this area's a little rusty, and I don't have the time to prepare a scripturally sound counter argument, so I'm gonna bow out of this particular topic (water baptism as symbolic or sacramental) here.  I do take issue with your last sentence though, as I'll address in a minute.

So just because it is not required for salvation it is meaningless?  True, there are lots of commands that Jesus/the bible gives us, but not all of them are centred around salvation; does that make them all meaningless?  Not at all, they are all important facets of the Christian life.

But why?  What is important about them?  You'll spend eternity in heaven once you "accept Jesus", so there is really no eternal point.

The only command that is required for salvation is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord.  John 1:12 says "To all who recieved him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".

And what exactly does the verse you quoted entail?  How did you arrive at the conclusion that "to receive him and believe in his name" means nothing more than some nebulous experience of "accepting him into your heart"?  That no outward action is required?  That none of the rest of his commands must be upheld?

Though verses like that are often made out to be "clear" instructions on what we must do for salvation (and to the exclusion of all else), they're really anything but.  I'd say that nearly ALL of the differences in most Christian denominations stem from how they interpret something like that.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all.  The first part was meant as a hypothetical situation, to illustrate why I believe baptism by water is not required for salvation.  What I'm saying is, if a person receives Christ, and dies a minute later without having the chance to be baptised, they are still saved because baptism itself is an outworking of one's desire to follow Christ, NOT a requirement to ensure salvation.

It's a part of the whole.  That doesn't rule out your scenario: like I said, God is just and merciful, and I'm sure he accommodates for extraordinary circumstances.

And nobody's said baptism "ensures" anything.  I think the idea of being able to "ensure" one's salvation--in the literal sense--at any point before death is completely unbiblical (although it's certainly quite an attractive doctrine).

When I say God's grace is enough, I mean that there are no boundaries to God's love, all we have to do to receive salvation is receive Christ, believe in him and his sacrifice and the gift of forgiveness, grace, love and (John 3:16).

Again, how do you "receive" Christ and believe in him?  The devil "believes" in God.  I see nothing about a sinner's prayer or "accepting Jesus as lord and savior" anywhere in the bible.

It has nothing to do with 'works' (Ephesians 2:8-9).  It is not bound by rituals or acts.  All we have to do is receive.  Of course, given the chance, we are to do all that we are commanded to do by Jesus, but above all else, God sees our hearts and thats what matters the most to him (1st Samuel 16:7).

Works do not "earn" salvation, but faith without works is dead.  Thus, they're a de facto requirement.  Not sure why the faith and works thing is such a point of contention.

-J

[hefdaddy42]

Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit.  If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story.  But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.

Your thinking is backward.  Since there is no mention of the Holy Spirit and no mention of water, then Saul's baptism was a baptism of water.  Baptism means "immersion" and the basic, given meaning was "in water."  That part was understood.  Since this doesn't mention "of the Holy Spirit," then it is talking about water.

But I tend to think this stressing of baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate thing is a bunch of hooey.

[soundgarden]

***This thread is aimed at Christians it seems since it assumes one believes in salvation and the purpose baptism, so please ignore the following if you are not interested, and its kinda off topic too***

Ghandi once stated something like "i like your Christ, I don't like your Christians," which is the same stance I take.

I find it disturbing that over time Christians have turned the very simple, very in-ornate, and very earthly rituals of early Christianity (simple breaking of break and drinking of wine) into these monolithic celebrations of pomp which appears to require massive structures with statues of marble and gold, and investments of money which, I know, would sadden Christ.

I wonder what Christ would think if he saw the money my cousins payed for their daughter's baptism and the money that went into building the Church in which it occurred.

[sneakyblueberry]

Because there is mention of the H.S and no mention of water, I'm inclined to believe that Saul's baptism was indeed a baptism of the Holy Spirit.  If the passage had read, "He got up, went to the nearest body of water, and was baptised", it would be a different story.  But even then, I would say that its was done as the hand in hand with salvation thing that i mentioned before.

Your thinking is backward.  Since there is no mention of the Holy Spirit and no mention of water, then Saul's baptism was a baptism of water.  Baptism means "immersion" and the basic, given meaning was "in water."  That part was understood.  Since this doesn't mention "of the Holy Spirit," then it is talking about water.

But I tend to think this stressing of baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate thing is a bunch of hooey.

There is mention of the Holy Spirit in this txt.  Unless you're meaning there is no mention of baptism with the H.S, then I'm with you.  I dunno, I'll have a think about it.  I just get the feeling from this txt that, seeing its after John's comment about Jesus baptising with the HS and fire, that its more than just baptism with water.

I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours.  Yay, I hear you say.  

I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush.  Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart  It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me.  In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself.  

[Fiery Winds]

I agree, it seems whenever religion or politics is up for debate, it's war.  When I ask questions I hope it's not seen as a way to "trap" someone, I'm genuinely curious how people arrive to their conclusions based upon the same evidence we all have.  Paraphrasing here, but just as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens each other.

[j]

I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours.  Yay, I hear you say.  

I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush.  Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart  It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me.  In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself.  

No worries dude, take your time.  I won't have time to respond until tomorrow night probably anyway.  And I'm not sure what you're talking about with your criticism of your own posts.  They seem solid and well-thought out as far as I can tell, and not worded poorly at all.  Nothing to be intimidated by, we're all just a bunch of clueless people posting our thoughts on the internet.

And I hope it hasn't come across this way, but I mean *absolutely* no hostility toward you or anybody whatsoever.  I know it's hard to convey tone and stuff through posts on a message board, and I can word things a little rudely at times, but trust me, it's nothing personal.  I'm enjoying the discussion and learning from it as well.

-J

[sneakyblueberry]

I agree, it seems whenever religion or politics is up for debate, it's war.  When I ask questions I hope it's not seen as a way to "trap" someone, I'm genuinely curious how people arrive to their conclusions based upon the same evidence we all have.  Paraphrasing here, but just as iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens each other.

I would like to answer J's rebuttal but I don't have enough time, I will in a couple of hours.  Yay, I hear you say.  

I'm sorry if my posts are worded a little retardedly, I have a difficult time with words; and combined with the intimidation I get from P/R, sometimes my brain turns to mush.  Everytime I step into the P/R board it feels like every little thing you say is put under a microscope, and any mistakes are ripped apart   It feels like there's malice behind the replies to my posts, but hopefully thats just me.  In any case, its been a nice discussion and I've gotten heaps out of it myself. 

No worries dude, take your time.  I won't have time to respond until tomorrow night probably anyway.  And I'm not sure what you're talking about with your criticism of your own posts.  They seem solid and well-thought out as far as I can tell, and not worded poorly at all.   Nothing to be intimidated by, we're all just a bunch of clueless people posting our thoughts on the internet.

And I hope it hasn't come across this way, but I mean *absolutely* no hostility toward you or anybody whatsoever.  I know it's hard to convey tone and stuff through posts on a message board, and I can word things a little rudely at times, but trust me, it's nothing personal.  I'm enjoying the discussion and learning from it as well.

-J

Thanks dudes! That is a relief to hear, and cheers for this discussion.  I think I've read my bible more in one day than I do most weeks!   Not something I'm proud of...

Well after thinking about this whole issue, I think I've decided on my stance.  At first, I believed that baptism wasn't required for salvation.  But after asking a few people about it and reading a bit more into it, I'm not so sure about it.  My heart leans towards 'no, baptism is not required for salvation', but as a Christian, I wouldn't want to be the one to run the risk of not being baptised and getting rejected at the gates!   So, really, I don't know.  I'm a believer and follower of Christ and was baptised when I was 11 or 12, so its not such a huge issue for me.  I would encourage any believer of Christ who hasn't been baptised to get it done because aside from it being a public stand, there is also an exchange that takes place in the water that can only happen through baptism.

J, I don't think its neccesary to carry on our entire discussion, due to the change of heart I've had in regards to it all. The one thing I will say in response to your comment about the 'sinner's prayer' is this: You're right, there is no mention of a sinner's prayer in the bible at all.  'The sinners prayer' is the name Christians have given to the prayer that encapsulates all of the things that the bible says are needed for salvation i.e, repentance, confessing Jesus as lord, filling of the Holy Spirit and so on.  I have no idea how the phrase came about.

I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways.  What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly:  I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation.  Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all.  I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will

[hefdaddy42]

There is mention of the Holy Spirit in this txt.  Unless you're meaning there is no mention of baptism with the H.S, then I'm with you.  

Yes, that's what I mean.

[j]

Thanks dudes! That is a relief to hear, and cheers for this discussion.  I think I've read my bible more in one day than I do most weeks!   Not something I'm proud of...

Well after thinking about this whole issue, I think I've decided on my stance.  At first, I believed that baptism wasn't required for salvation.  But after asking a few people about it and reading a bit more into it, I'm not so sure about it.  My heart leans towards 'no, baptism is not required for salvation', but as a Christian, I wouldn't want to be the one to run the risk of not being baptised and getting rejected at the gates!   So, really, I don't know.  I'm a believer and follower of Christ and was baptised when I was 11 or 12, so its not such a huge issue for me.  I would encourage any believer of Christ who hasn't been baptised to get it done because aside from it being a public stand, there is also an exchange that takes place in the water that can only happen through baptism.

Couldn't agree more.  Our views on this are based on our own study and perspectives; I don't think either of us can claim it to be certain, absolute truth.  I never really had a super-strong opinion about this particular subject, but I generally took the position you have: err on the side of caution.  Why NOT be baptized?  It may or may not be required, but it was promoted by Jesus and the apostles and it certainly figures prominently into scripture one way or the other.

J, I don't think its neccesary to carry on our entire discussion, due to the change of heart I've had in regards to it all. The one thing I will say in response to your comment about the 'sinner's prayer' is this: You're right, there is no mention of a sinner's prayer in the bible at all.  'The sinners prayer' is the name Christians have given to the prayer that encapsulates all of the things that the bible says are needed for salvation i.e, repentance, confessing Jesus as lord, filling of the Holy Spirit and so on.  I have no idea how the phrase came about.

My issue with this is more than just nominal.  It's that I don't think a prayer--no matter what it includes--is all that is needed for salvation.  Sure, those things you listed are definitely requirements, but are they sufficient by themselves?  Say the magic words, and boom, you're done?  Topic for another thread though.

I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways.  What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly:  I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation.  Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all.  I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will

Well-said.  I think this came up in another thread fairly recently (the idea of God making "exceptions" to his rules).  Interesting stuff to think about, IMO.

-J

[Fiery Winds]

I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again; God is not limited to our rules, rituals or perceptions of Him and His ways.  What we have been discussing here displays that perfectly:  I find it amazing that in the case of Paul, there is no "sinner's prayer" yet God tells Paul through Annanias to 'Rise and be baptised', through which Paul recieves salvation.  Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Jesus tells the theif that he will be in paradise with Him, with just the "sinner's prayer", with no water baptism at all.  I suppose if you make the 'rules', you can bend them at will

Props for being willing to evaluate your beliefs, it's something that's sorely needed among Christians today.  

Also, the bolded part is a common argument, however, when you consider that baptism is described in the NT as being buried with Christ and rising in him as a symbol of his resurrection, he couldn't have been baptized yet because Jesus hadn't been raised from the dead yet!  I'm not saying the baptism of John was worthless, but we know from Priscilla and Aquilla teaching Apollos that the baptism of John wasn't sufficient after Christ's death.  But you're right, Jesus (God) judges the heart, and I can't say that didn't have anything to do with it either.

[Ħ]

So, basically at the Bible study I went to, we looked at a lot of cases where someone was considered saved but not baptized.  Many examples have already been listed.  A major one that was emphasized at the study was that how Paul refused to baptize practically the entire congregation at Corinth.  (I forget the verses.)

At any rate, I think that there is very strong evidence for both sides.  If not for my belief that the Bible is perfect, I would certainly come to the conclusion that there are some major contradictions here.  This is a very faith-pressing topic for me...

[yeshaberto]

the only thing I could think of that you are referring to in I Cor is in ch 1 where Paul is warning them of the problem of sectarianism and how stupid it was for anybody to be a follower of Paul.  He says, "I did not come to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (vs. 17).  It is obvious that he isn't being literal because he just finished saying that he had baptized a number of people.  His point is that they shouldn't follow Paul because he baptised them (or anyone for that matter) but they should follow Jesus (ie. the one who is the heart of the gospel Paul preaches).

I can understand someone having doubts about the timing of salvation in baptism, I can see someone having doubts about the salvational efficacy of baptism, but I am hardpressed to see how someone could argue that baptism is not necessary at all. 

[Ħ]

^ Is it worth sacrificing their salvation by not baptizing them to teach them a lesson?  I don't know if I'm seeing this the right way...

[j]

At any rate, I think that there is very strong evidence for both sides.  If not for my belief that the Bible is perfect, I would certainly come to the conclusion that there are some major contradictions here.  This is a very faith-pressing topic for me...

Doesn't necessarily have to be.  It depends on the sense in which--and the degree to which--you think the bible is inerrant, infallible, etc.

-J

[Ħ]

It doesn't have to be, I know, but I subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration.  So, either there's an answer to this baptism conundrum or I jettison that belief...

[yeshaberto]

^ Is it worth sacrificing their salvation by not baptizing them to teach them a lesson?  I don't know if I'm seeing this the right way...

not sure what you mean, Paul isn't saying he isn't going to baptize them, he is only saying that his highest purpose isn't their baptism but the gospel.  in other words, don't follow me because I baptized you, follow Jesus because He saved you.
does that hint at what you are getting at?

[Ħ]

Yes, I understand the lesson Paul was trying to teach, but here's my problem:

Since Paul refused to baptize them, regardless of his reasoning, they never got a chance to be saved (if salvation comes by faith + baptism).

And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others?  Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)

[j]

It doesn't have to be, I know, but I subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration.  So, either there's an answer to this baptism conundrum or I jettison that belief...

Out of curiosity, do you read the scriptures in their original languages?  I was under the impression that that is almost a necessity if you hold strictly to that view of the bible, due to all the disparities that would invariably accompany translation.

-J

[yeshaberto]

Yes, I understand the lesson Paul was trying to teach, but here's my problem:

Since Paul refused to baptize them, regardless of his reasoning, they never got a chance to be saved (if salvation comes by faith + baptism).

And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others?  Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)

where does Paul refuse to baptize them?  I don't remember any comment like that but may have missed it.

interesting question about others baptizing besides apostles.  surely there are others, but I can't think of any others off top of my head

[j]

And actually, this leads me to another question: why are the apostles the only ones that baptized others?  Were they specially ordained to that position? (Sorry if that's an ignorant question.)

Acts 8:36-38 - Philip baptizes somebody.  He was a deacon or something I believe.

-J