The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Necessary For Salvation

On Circimcison and baptism In this last speech, I just want to clarify to my opponent what did I mean when I said," In the Bible, baptism is compared to circumcision (Colossians 2)".Here's the explanation: God established a covenant with Abraham, that his descendents should be circumcised in order to be in a relationship with the Lord (Genesis 17:10-14). For those who are subject to the law of Christ, the necessity of a circumcision has not changed, but the nature of the operation has. It is no longer that which is exercised by the hands of man, but a"...circumcision made without hands..." It is no longer the cutting away of the foreskin, but the"...putting off the body of sins of the flesh..." If the physical circumcision (the cutting off of the foreskin) was essential, how much more then the spiritual circumcision (the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh)? Furthermore my opponent had a faulty understanding of what circumcision am I really talking about. He refers to Acts 15 to defend his case, however, this is not what I'm talking about. The circumcision I am referring is Old Testament/Covenant circumcision. New testament/Covenant circumcision is baptism. I hope that clears your mind. "I already pointed out that the terms such as: "put on Christ in baptism" and "baptized into Christ" simply means a strong correlation to" My question has been left unanswered by stubs."Do we bury dead persons"? Your assumptions on those passages were merely assumptions. And how in the world did “put on Christ in baptism” and "baptized into Christ simply mean a strong correlation…”.That’s right my opponent did not provide any proof nor backed it up with any proof. Mark 16:16 It should be noted that when the Lord added, 'but whoever does not believe will be condemned,' there is no mention of baptism. In identifying what would bring about condemnation, Jesus did not say that 'whoever believes but is not baptized shall not be save.' I don't know if my opponent has shown plain ignorance or lack of biblical knowledge on Mark 16:16 but now he has gone extreme on his position by saying ANY act of obedience to the Lord will do. What right-thinking person would affirm such statement? Don't allow his theological smokescreen to hide from your eyes that Jesus placed faith ("believes") and baptism ("baptized") before salvation ("saved"). I have already shown in my past rounds that belief and baptism cannot be separated because of the word "and". He can do many mental gymnastics as he want but God's word still stands. Acts 2:38 "Let's look at the context. The people had just asked Paul what they should do. In that time it was not common for Jews to be baptized, only Gentiles who wanted to become Jews. "For these Jewish men and women to be baptized showed just how strongly they felt they needed Jesus."" It is quite obvious that my opponent in an effort to dodge the impact of my argument on Acts 2:38 has turned onto something new particularly to the gentiles. Acts 22:16 "The washing away of sins was not in reference to being baptized, rather the calling on the name of the Lord." Stubs says, Paul was saved by "calling on the name of the Lord." I agree and if he accepts the conclusions to that, we are not far apart. However, contrary to what my opponent says, there is nothing in the Greek text which shows that "calling on the name of the Lord" refers to "wash away thy sins" but not to "be baptized." Actually both aorist imperatives are causative middles and the action covered by the aorist participle, "calling on his name," is simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives. Everyone understands the flexibility of language whereby the same thought may be expressed in different ways. My opponent would have us conclude that since Ananias did not say, "arise and be baptized washing away thy sins...", then baptism and washing away sins cannot be connected together. Not so. For instance, if a judge said to a man convicted of a crime, "Arise, receive your sentence and be incarcerated, conforming to the law's requirements," we would have no difficulty understanding the meaning. The commands make perfectly good sense the way Ananias put them to Saul and the simplest understanding of the commands is that arising and being baptized would wash away Saul's sins and that this was invoking the authority of the Lord. If Stubs will look at how the passage must read to fit his explanation, he will realize how much he is distorting it. To fit his doctrine, it would have to read like this: "...arise and wash away thy sins by calling on the name of the Lord and then get baptized." I challenge my opponent to preach the same message that Ananias brought to Saul, Will he tell people that they must do what Ananias, by the authority of Christ, commanded Saul to do? He cannot without changing his theology. Saul had to be baptized to wash away his sins and this passage clearly demonstrates the necessity of baptism for salvation. Romans, Colossians, Galatians: "Is baptism a symbol? Yes. But is baptism a symbol of our already having been saved? NO! A thousand times, no.[...]" This was just be beginning of a list of bare assertions. It is essentially 3 dropped points as he says, "The context does not support that view at all." But does not give evidence to back up this claim. I think to prejudice the readers of this debate he has to say "bare assertions" "[he] does not give evidence to back up this claim". Both of them are untrue I have backed up my arguments and you can see it in the previous rounds. "Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died. If we are going to examine our life and our salvation from this prospect, why don’t we just all die as children, because then we must be saved (Matthew 18:1-6)? Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions -- otherwise it isn't necessary." [6] Babies are not subject to baptism since they do not have faith and have the capacity to repent since they have not committed sins yet. And if we follow my opponent's argument on this matter babies would also go to hell if they don't have faith in Christ. Conclusion It is somewhat unusual for my opponent to admit that," I tend to just look at the scriptures and say, "I think it actually means what it says." What about,"he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" and "baptism doth now saves us". I think it's pretty clear that his words contradict himself. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism brings about salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21); results in the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38;Acts 22:16); is the point at which we become dead to sin (Romans 6:1-4); is the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11-13); and is how we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27). Throughout Stubs' argument, he has not sought to discount the proposition, but has attacked the Scriptures. But when we look past the theological and grammatical smokescreen he has set up, the Bible still declares the necessity of baptism for salvation. The proposition stands, "The Bible Teaches That Water Baptism Is Necessary For Salvation" This debate has been worthwhile and thanks to my opponent for participating in this discussion.