the Script. teach water baptism is to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins.

This is an important question that has been contentious on this site and among Christians for generations. Opening ConsiderationsPrior to the onset of my argument I would like to make a disclaimer of sorts. Good God fearing Christians throughout the generations have made solid exegetical arguments that are grounded in Scripture and have come to very different conclusions. I would like to point out that I do not believe this to be an issue worth dividing the Bride of Christ over, and therefore will not do so. I would encourage my opponent to recognize this, as historically on this site he and others in this theological "camp" have engaged in questioning the salvation and compentency of those who raise counter arguments. Summary of Argument StructureMy argument will take the following basic structure:First I shall affirm the commonalities of our perspectives, as to exclude them from future debate. This shall include some clarifications in termSecond, I shall summarize the point of contention in order to focus our debateThird, I shall respond to my opponent's argumentNote: My first round shall be primarily a positive argumen, I will save detailed rebuttals for my 2nd round. Common GroundI would like to affirm the common ground that we stand on. My opponent affirms that we are saved by grace, through faith. He also asserts that there is no salvific power inherant in the act of baptism. However, this is where our commonalities (in this discussion) end. In addition to recognizing these shared stances, I would like to clarify some terms. A) The Scriptures - My opponent simply defines this as "the Word of God. " I would like to clarify that this is the "written word of God contained in the 66 books of the Protestant Canon. " I anticipate no objection by my opponent. B) Teach - I have no objectionC) Water Baptism - My opponent defines this specifically as immersion. However, I do not find this to be an accurate description historically. The Biblical evidence is sparse and no where in the Bible is it affirmatively taught that baptism MUST be by immersion. We have significant descrptive evidence of people being baptised in this way, but there are also ambiguous instances where the method of baptism is not defined. Because this debate is about the purpose of baptism and not the method of baptism, I suggest that we simply refer to baptism and not specify the type of baptism. D) Penitent - I have no objection to this definton, but perhaps my opponent should clarify. There is an inherant contradiction in my opponent's argument in that my opponent's argument claims that a person cannot be saved simply by being penitent, however the label "believer" is typically reserved for those who are saved. E) No objectionF) No objectionG) No objection, although further clarification on what "obeying the Gospel of Christ" means will certianly become a part of the debate. At this point I am not maknig a statement of what that aspect of the definition means. What is the Contentious Point? While there are some things that we agree on, there is a primary point of disagreement between my opponent and me. To phrase the disagreement specificallyIs baptism a contingent requirement of salvation? - or -Is baptism a resultative requirement of salvation? My opponent argues for the former. Allow me to explain. When something is a contingent requirement, it means that the latter cannot occur without the former. In a sentence describing this relationship, we would use the word "must," thus my opponent would argue that "To be saved you MUST be baptised"However, a resultative requirement is different. In a sentence describing we would use the word "will," thus I would argue "If you are saved you will be baptised. "So you see, the disagreemen is the nature of the relationship between baptism and salvation, not whether baptism is necessary. We are arguing rather, in what way is baptism necessary. Because of this, engaging in discussion of theoreticals where a believer is not baptised and how that is possible is irellevant. Affirmative ArgumentAs Con, my burden of proof is simply to show that Pro's argument is not sufficient to affirm the resolution. In addition, since we are arguing about what the Bible teaches, I must simply show that my opponent has not proven that the Bible affirmatively teaches that baptism is a contingent requirement for salvation. As such, a single example of a person who had obtained salvation in the Bible but was not baptised should suffice. Now, my opponent is likely to bring forth the argument that while Christ was present on earth he had the authority to forgive sins without baptism, however in order to assert this he will need to demonstrate biblically why this authority to forgive sins becomes diminished after his asscent to heaven. Example 1) My opponent has already brought forward the example of a sinful woman who came and annointed Jesus's feet (Luke 7). In the story, Jesus is dining at the home of an influential pharisee named Simon. A woman who is simply called "a sinner" comes and weeps at Jesus's feet. Washes them with her tears and annoints them with oil. Simon objects to this and Christ asks him if a person who's large debt is cancelled will be more thankful than a person who's small debt will be more thankful. While there is importance in the answer, for our purpose the important part is that Jesus is stating that this woman's debt (sin) is about to be cancelled. What happens next is significant. Christ proclaims her "saved. " He says "your faith has saved you. " The word for "saved" here is "sesōken" and is the word we get "soteriology" from. In addition this word appears in the perfect tense, which indicates that this is verb that began in the past and has present implications. We have no indication whatsoever that this woman had been baptised, yet Christ declares that she has indeed been saved. Example 2) In Luke 8, we see the story of a woman who was afflicted with non-fatal bleeding for a period of 12 years. The woman comes to Jesus in faith and believes that if she simply grasps Jesus robe she would be healed. She does so and immediately is healed. Jesus percieves that someone has been healed and seeks her out. Once she identifies herself Jesus proclaims salvation over her. Now, while most translations use the phrase "Your faith has made you well/whole," a literal translation would reveal the exact same phrasing as the sinful woman of Luke 8. He proclaims "sesōken" to the woman. Again, we see that someone has been declared to be saved with no indication that they had been baptised. Example 3) In Luke 18, a blind begger comes in faith to Jesus. He simply cries out to Jesus to have mercy on him. Christ addresses the man and when finding out that he desires to have is sight restores, Jesus again proclaims "sesōken. " Again, we see a person who has been declared saved with no indication that baptism has occured. Example 4) Earlier in Luke 18 we see a parable of two persons standing before God. The first is a pharisee who finds confidence of salvation in his works. The second is a humble tax collector who acknolwedges his status before God as a sinner, and cries out for mercy. Of the tax collector he states "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified. " There is no indication in the parable that the person was baptised prior to this incident, or between going from the temple to his house. In this parable, baptism is not a part of justification. I believe that I have sufficiently made the point that although baptism is a necessary outcome of salvation, it is not a requirement. I have done so by providing four New Testament examples of persons declared saved by Christ himself with no mention of Baptism whatsoever. I look forward to my opponent's response, and will offer specific rebuttals to his opening argument in the 2nd round. Thank you.