|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Baptism Now Saves Us (I Peter 3:21.)
|
Luke 7:29-30, Matthew 28:18-20 et al.The focus, however when honestly appraised is in fact the subject of OBEDIENCE
TO THE WILL OF GOD. (LUKE 6:46 Matthew 7:21 Hebrews5:9.)
The argument for baptism as an essential component of salvation is indeed a compelling one part of which is the following: there are 5 steps signalled as being essential to entering the state of grace and salvation,and they are;
[1] Hear the word.[2]Believe the word. [3] Repent of sins.
[4] Confess Christ before men. [5] Be baptized for the remission of sins.
The question naturally arises, can one be four fifths saved? For example, be baptized but not fully repent,confess,hear and believe? We all know that this type of reasoning is illogical as we must OBEY ALL OF GOD'S WILL
OR IT WILL BE OF NO EFFECT TO US (Matthew 7:21.)
The Bible teaches both by explicit statements and implication. For example Saul of Tarsus was baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16) yet nowhere are we told that he heard, believed, confessed Christ before men or repented of his sins,yet we know he MUST HAVE, why? Because his being baptized IMPLIES the other 4 steps had taken place. Also in(Acts 2:38,) 3,000 Jews repented and were baptized for the remission of their sins, this implies they also took the other 3 steps not explicitly stated. In fact, it is of note that IN EVERY CONVERSION mentioned in Acts baptism is the ONLY ACT MENTIONED IN EVERY CASE This not only implies the other 4 steps, but it explicitly shows baptism is essential for salvation.
Now many point to the "fact" that the thief on the cross was saved without having been baptized,however, there are 4 points against this theory.
[1] it is nowhere explicitly stated that he was not baptized thus it is not implied that he was not.
[2]He was saved under the terms of the old covenant directly by Christ who had the power to forgive sins directly while He was on the earth(Matthew 9:6.)
[3] it is stated in (Luke 7:29-30) that ALL the people and tax gatherers when they heard what Christ had said,"acknowledged God's justice having been baptized with John's baptism, but the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED GOD'S PURPOSE FOR THEMSELVES NOT HAVING BEEN BAPTIZED BY JOHN."
[4] The thief on the cross knew about Christ's coming kingdom (Luke 23:42). Both the baptism of John and the thief on the cross spoke of the coming kingdom and Luke by inspiration recorded both things.
These facts form a strong line of implication pointing to the assumption that the thief on the cross very likely had been baptized by John's baptism. While his companion at the crucifixion likely was not and therefore lost. Further this line of implication seems far stronger than the blanket assertion that the thief on the cross had NEVER been baptized at all. There is absolutely NO PROOF OF THAT ASSERTION. But, there are at least 3 lines of implication that show he may have indeed been baptized.
These things notwithstanding do nothing to lessen the fact that baptism IS ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION. Christ Himself signalled it not only in (luke 7) but also in
(John 3:5) where He chided Nicodemus for "NOT KNOWING THESE THINGS." Christ then says,"Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,"
(cf Acts 2:38.) "Be baptized in water and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is a very powerful statement when deeply and honestly considered for one is added to the church AFTER BAPTISM (Acts 2:47.)
The argument Christ uses in (John 3:5,)is unbreakable both in logic and in scripture (which cannot be broken.) In logic there are definite rules for an exceptive sentence. these rules are: [1] An exceptive sentence can only translate into a universal affirmative or (A) propostion of logic, or a universal negative or (E)proposition. The exceptive sentence has with it an IF AND ONLY IF STATEMENT this strengthens it to the point where it cannot be broken or given another meaning, IT IS THUS UNEQUIVOCAL.the two propositions are.
(A) "All persons who are born of water and the spirit
are persons who enter the kingdom of heaven."
(E) "No person can enter the kingdom of heaven who
has not been born of water and the Spirit."
Then the "if and only if" statement.
"A person may enter the kingdom of heaven
'if and only if' that person has been born
of water and the Spirit."
Now we see why Christ used the word "except" or "unless"
add to this the fact that one does not receive the gift of the Spirit until one is baptized in water (Acts 2:38.) so, is baptism essential for salvation? What can we say in the light of these facts? The point is that one can negate any of the other 4 steps with the same sort of argument yet we can see that we could not negate faith, so why do we try to negate baptism?
 |
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
|
|
