please dont take this as me trying to convert people to a different doctrine. im so confused and for a whole week have been so stressed and lost. its hard to sleep when im not sure anymore if i will go to hell or not. but no christian can even give me much scripture on baptism not being needed for salvation and please im begging for help now. something tells me we dont need baptism for salvation but scripture seems to prove otherwise very much so.
well i have organized my thoughts and i hope that someone can give a good arguement that baptism is not needed for salvation, but i will put down what these people believe and why they believe the scriptures. but please dont post anything if you want to give an opinion that is not fully supported by scripture. so here i go...
i argued about the theif on the cross with these people to show how he did not get baptized but they gave me a good answer based on scripture. it fits right in because they said that while jesus lived on earth, theres no way they were to follow the new testament. baptism according to passages such as romans, says you die, are buried and are resurected with christ. well the theif couldnt die resurect nor be buried with christ. everyone who got saved such as the theif on the cross and others, it was because jesus had the authorit to forgive sins and no way could baptism mean what it means in the new testments...well atleast after the gospels.
now you might say thats not true because people were always baptizing, however, it was no required to save, and i will show scripture that says it is required to save from the bible. circumsicion however was thought to save people though but it was symbolic. no where does paul say its symbolic in his scripture he only says circumcision was.
now what about when jesus says those that believe and are baptized will be saved. sure he says but if you dont believe your condemned and we wonder well ok but it doesnt include baptism. well neither parts include repent. i guess we dont even have to repent. no because if we believe jesus then we know that he required repentance which is part of our belief in him, which also means that he commanded to be baptized also. so if you argue that he says nothing about baptism for condemnation then you have to realize he says nothing about repentance and i guess we dont need to repent cus we will be saved just by believing.
now what about when jesus says unless you are born of water and spirit. why cant water mean water? i heard that water means spirit or holy spirit i forgot which one but that makes no sense...is jesus saying unless you are born of spirit and spirit? did he mess up in his speech? that makes no sense. however baptism throughout the bible is used with words such as a new birth and other words to show rebirth, hench born again of water.
now heres one that gets me. what about in 1peter when it says that the water from noahs ark symbolizes baptism...its strange how water is tied with baptism in that passage but ok lets still go ahead and say it is a spirit baptism not anything to do with water baptism. well why does he then go on to say it saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body. ok now if hes talking about the spirit, then of course we know the spirit doesnt take dirt off your body. in fact he had no reason to say this because we wouldnt even of thought about that. lets take for example, if he said, " and this bannana saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body...ok now why would we even need to hear that a bannana doesnt remove dirt from your body, this wouldnt even cross our minds. so lets see what evidence we have pointing to water baptism. for some reason paul talks about water from noah, and then he includes that this baptism doesnt remove dirt from your body. now if paul was talking about water baptism then we could see how people might say, "hey i guess we are saved because we also need to be cleansed from your filth on our bodies." but paul lets them know that its a cleansing that means more than cleaning your body on the outside.
now some people might say well what about when cornelious in acts got the holy spirit and in the beginning of acts when the holy spirit came down on the people. but think about this. these were the only occasions that there was no baptism. lets look at cornelious. he was already looked at by god because he had been god fearing and doing great works. but he just had never heard of jesus yet because jesus never left jerusalem....if im wrong there then sorry, but i do know for sure that these people hadnt heard of jesus or what had happened, this is why the apostles would travel the world to preach what had happened. anyways, since he didnt know about jesus, he would never know about baptism and therfor not be baptized the way jesus commanded. and peter couldnt understand what his dream meant yet. now remember jews were thought to be so unclean in gods eyes to even associate with gentiles and such people. this means that peter would still have the belief from being a jew that gentiles were still not favored in gods eyes and this also means he would never baptize a gentile. but think about it. this was the only other time besides acts chapter 2 that the holy spirit came upon him before baptism. but at the same time it didnt say he recieved the spirit, it says it came upon..but this was also the ONLY time one did not get baptized. so the only time one did not get baptized was also the time when peter now knew it was ok to baptize gentiles.
for my last argument, some point out scriptures in acts such as with the guard saying sirs what must i do to be saved. well they say believe in the lord jesus. now sure they didnt include baptism, but they also did not include repenance. again just as jesus says those that dont believe are condemn and doesnt include baptism, they also say believe in the lord jesus but do not say repent. meaning if they did not tell the man to repent nor be baptized yet baptises him later could only mean that to believe in jesus means to also believe what he commanded which includes repentance and baptism. this could also show how he must of explained baptism and repentance to them as for why they so quickly got baptized after going to the river. this could also explain why they even went to a river. i know they went for wounds, but im just saying i can see some connections there, because like i said they said nothing about repentance. so please prove to me with scripture against scripture why we dont need baptism. im very torn between the two but more on we need baptism.
