The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Necessary For Salvation

I thank him for summarizing His position regarding salvation, though I find his position contrary to the Scriptures. I am unsure about baptism being a covenant sign but that position cannot be shown by the Scriptures. In the Bible, baptism is compared to circumcision (Colossians 2) and likens our salvation through water to Noah's salvation through water (1 Peter 3). Notice that neither of these provides accommodations for those who desire to exclude baptism. Furthermore, instead of using the Scriptures why does my opponent quote multiple references from CARM. org? In addition to that, stubs wrongly assumes that verses like Roman 6; Galatians 3 and Acts 22 only represents the salvation you already had. On the contrary it does the opposite. Do phrases like "wash away thy sins", "newness of life" and "baptized into Christ" says that it "only represents our salvation"? If it is so, then, these writers were lying. Furthermore, my opponent (or should I say CARM. org) uses I Cor. 1:17 to justify his position. Consider this following quote: "Was Paul saying that baptism is not important? Certainly not. Remember it was Paul who said that we put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27). Actually, the passage is very consistent in showing that baptism is very important. It is obvious that the Christians in Corinth had been baptized; this is inferred in 1 Corinthians 1:13 and stated in Acts 18:8. And Paul, in this passage, actually indicates that two things are required before a person may call himself after another person. First, Paul would have to die for that person; and second, that person would have to be baptized in the name of Paul. This actually parallels perfectly with Biblical teaching that Christ has died for us, and we rightfully call ourselves Christians when we put Christ on in baptism. ”[1] The divisions that were occurring with the Corinthians apparently got started because they were placing improper importance and significance on who baptized them. Whether it was Paul or some other teacher, it did not matter. Even though Paul may have only baptized a few of the Corinthians himself, personally, they ALL were baptized! 1Corinthians 12:13: For we were ALL baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Mark 16:16 Here my opponent says " . .. note that the emphasis is on believing. If a person does not believe, he is condemned, even if he has been baptized. " [8] "The omission of baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism". His conclusion is inaccurate. The verse as a whole teaches that those who believe and are baptized will be saved but disbelievers will be damned. As a whole, it certainly does not contradict what a part of it teaches. In the whole verse "believeth" and "is baptized" are joined by the coordinate conjunction "and;" therefore, are equally related to "shall be saved. " The negative conclusion from that clause is that he that is not saved did not believe and was not baptized. If he eliminates the restrictive, conditional part of the clause (believeth and is baptized), he makes the passage teach universalism; that is, all are saved regardless of their lack of response to the gospel. On the other hand, if he seeks to affirm only the condition of belief, he twists the passage because it teaches both belief and baptism. In fact, his position demands that the passage read: "He that believeth will be saved but need not be baptized. " Surely he can see how his theology has caused him to change Jesus’ statements. Acts 2:38 Contrary to Stub's efforts to set aside the connection between scriptural baptism and the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, stands opposed to his doctrine. "Repent ye" and "be baptized" are connected by the coordinate conjunction "and" and are both related to the "forgiveness of sins. " Notice that the "each one" (hekastos) is followed by "of you" (humon, plural); hence, "each one of you" (plural) is baptized for the sins "of you" (plural). Grammatically and sensibly, each person would understand that he was being baptized for the remission of his own sins. To illustrate the point, a teacher might say, "Students, arise ye and come forward, each one of you, for a copy of your test," and I doubt that if Stubs was in the class, that he would expect to get a copy of the test for the whole group. Everyone would understand that each student would have to arise and come forward for his own copy of the test. To this we can add the testimony of scholars in the Greek language. J. H. Thayer says, "Hekastos, when it denotes individually, every one of many, is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number," (J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, p. 192). My opponent's position on the passage demands that it read thusly: "Repent ye for the remission of sins and be baptized each one of you. .. ". My opponent asked: If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned? Answer: It is already understood in the context that they were already “pricked to the heart”(v.37) it was already indicated that they had faith thus in v. 38 Peter spoke to them the remaining conditions/requirement of salvation Acts 22:16 My opponent did no response on my argument in this passage in fact it would be even unusual to give a response. At the beginning of his first negative, let me pointed it out that he has, in essence, affirmed that Acts 22 is only a sign yet he says further in this passage that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. If we follow my opponent's logic it would be that the blood of Jesus Christ only "represents the cleansing of a persons sins" as he has said. Furthermore once again i will post this question to my opponent: If Saul(Paul) was saved when he was at the Damascus road, then, why did Ananias told Paul to "wash away thy sins" if his sins were already gone? Rom. 6:1-4; Colossians 2:13 and Gal 3:27:Is baptism a symbol? Yes. But is baptism a symbol of our already having been saved? NO! A thousand times, no. There is not one passage in all the New Testament which makes baptism symbolize our salvation from sin. It is one thing to affirm that baptism is a symbol, as my opponent does, but it is an entirely different position and subtle transition when he concludes that baptism merely symbolizes our salvation, that is, that it depicts to the world that we have already been saved before we are baptized. The context does not support that view at all. Stubs’ conclusion is that since baptism is used symbolically or figuratively, then it is not necessary to our salvation from sin. Non Sequitor! But follow his logic and see where it leads. In Acts 14:26, Paul used the expression ". .. opened the door of faith. .. " This is a figurative expression. If it is a figurative expression, then, according to Stubs’ logic, faith is not necessary to salvation. The symbolism here is that of comparing Christ's death, burial and resurrection to our death, burial and resurrection in baptism-our baptism is a form of that which Christ did. In baptism we die and we are buried and from baptism we are raised to walk in newness of life because we are forgiven. We are then new-born babes in Christ. Stubs’ says this only happens in figure-Paul says it happens in reality. Should one doubt that this is the way our baptism figures Christ's death, burial and resurrection, note v. 5-"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. .. " It is the likeness of His death and the likeness of His resurrection. Conclusion It seems that my opponent has forgotten I Pet. 3:21 Nevertheless I have proven by Scripture that biblical water baptism to a believer is essential to have his sins washed away. Good luck to Stubs and best wishes