Baptism is essential to salvation

I take it as clear that Pro means the 1st definition of essential he gave, the second seeming rather irrelevant here. I accept Pro's definition of Baptism. Removing the word "Christianity" from the definition of salvation is necessary to grant the definition syntactic coherence even by the presently observed standards of definition whereby - or : are observed as synonyms of is. To is also worthless lingual debris If my opponent objects to the simplified and fixed definition of Salvation as deliverance by redemption from the power of sin and from the penalties ensuing from it; he will have to propose a newly grammatically coherent definition in the next round, which not being stipulated will be under significant burden. I note that he has the burden of proof for all propositions. Within the context of the Bible, which my opponent accepts as an authority on the matter: Baptism is clearly a work. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Ephesians 2:8,9 It is by faith that the Bible declares we are saved. No "Through faith if works," works such as baptism some essential, necessary proposition, but "Through faith... not of works." God's grace is the sole deciding factor, it is necessary and sufficient. ""be baptized." That there is a command to be baptized does not establish necessity for salvation. " baptism is part of the "all truth."" Nothing obviously relevant to the debate follows from this claim. Also, how was that verse fulfilled by the other? "Peter exhorted, "Save yourselves" (Acts 2:40)," Peter may exhort whatever impossible things he wishes. Yet the Bible maintains it is not possible to save yourself. "which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, "then they gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation." That is a non sequitir. "Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation" Peter's counterfactual plan to state that words would save him does not make it so. Commands to baptism do not establish necessity. Christianity assumes you will fail your commands anyway. To follow commands thinking it will save you is to violate Christianity's premise about Man's nature. ""This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."" Pleasure is not salvation. " There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." There is only one set of genitalia on my body, this does not establish that it is a necessary condition of salvation, even were I to wave it above you all, and thrust it through you all and in you all. " Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." It is already contradicted that our act of accepting baptism can offer salvation, hence, the only noncontradictory interpretation here is that the resurrection we gain a share in is something other than our ultimate salvation. " This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you also -not the removal of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God" The symbol of baptism which saves you is not the baptism, not the removal of dirt from the body. Grammatically it is clear. The baptism is the removal of dirt from the body. The symbol is the answer of a good conscience toward God-- faith. This is mildly inconsistent in that faith hardly seems like a good attribute of conscience, and it certainly makes Plato roll over in his grave at his Christian descendants for stating that the shadow on the wall is heavenly and the form the earthly act, but it is less blatantly contradictory than the alternative. " andyou were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. " And I play football in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else. ""I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod." Since interpreting this as baptism would be contradictory, we are forced to interpret it as anything else. Perhaps God gives the faithful a bath in watery spirits after their death after their first resurrection or two. It sound silly, but the Law of Identity takes precedence over not sounding silly. "And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" When, not "only because of" " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." This can be read as a contributory or a sufficient condition to faith in Christ-- the latter is problematic if you assume humans have free will over faith-- but it clearly does not establish necessity. "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned." Says nothing at all about the case of he who believes but is not baptized, and the fate of that case is the crux of the matter. " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit" According to his mercy-- by washing of his regeneration, not of his ceremony. Even if it did say his ceremony, that just means that's the means he used for those people, and leaves open other means for other faithful. "Go therefore ...baptizing them" A mere command, not an establishment of necessary conditions. And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Turn on the oven, and wave a magic wand over it, and the chicken inside will be cooked. The magic wand is of course optional. This statement leaves open-- Peter could be wrong, Baptism could be an accessory much like the magic wand. ""Save yourselves" Already established as impossible according to Bible. "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name." No content not already addressed. Stepping back into Reality: Pro has the burden of proof. He has not demonstrated the Bible's authority on salvation. Furthermore, there seems to be a problem in this notion of "Salvation." If you can be delivered from the consequences of sin by redemption, they aren't really the consequences of sin, they are the consequences of sin minus redemption. What are the sins, what are the consequences? Cite not the Bible but Reality if you wish to prevail on this fork of the argument, which is the really important one-- winning the Bible fork is neither necessary nor sufficient, but the Reality fork is both. Since the Resolution does not ask "According to the Bible, Baptism is essential to salvation" but simply "Baptism is essential to salvation", the Bible arguments are mere sideshow unless you can link them to the reality fork. I have addressed them only for completeness.