Is baptism essential unto salvation?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

This is good. Now, let's set the paradigm through which we will view the scriptures you mentioned. Do you agree there was a sin remission prior to the resurrection?

Let's stick to scripture alone on this.
There is plenty of scripture to show that Christ was our propitiation of sin (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 John 2/4), making salvation available through Him.
And I put on His name, identifying with Him and His covenant through water baptism (a highly significant thing in Eastern culture). Our father is no longer Adam, but Christ. Baptism is no more important than a reptentant heart, and Christ the hope of it all. It's not the water, just like it wasn't the water of the Jordan that healed Naaman, it was the charge/instructions of God's mediator (in this case Christ), and the faith/trust of Naaman in him (our faith in Him).

[Adino]

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

Adino this is a strawman you know we believe ALL mankind's sins were remitted by Hid blood at Calvary. However to appropriate that remission of sins afforded at Calvary ONLY occurs to the penitent in baptism in Jesus Name.
ONLY in immersion by having His name invoked do we recieve the remission of sins through Calvary's blood.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

Bro., this is the Gospel at its core. If you cannot come to a position of the sin remission of the Cross, we have some major concerns.

Did the resurrection prove that those sins imputed to Christ had been removed or only that they could be removed at a future date? If only that they could be removed at a future date how was it that Christ, to whom all our sin was imputed, rose from the dead?

Why did our sin not hold Christ in the grave????????

He knew no sin. He was the prophesied substitute, the second Adam, taking away the sins of the world. Now we could come to Christ, and not just have our sins pushed forward, but no longer as a burden over our heads --- yes, remitted. Like the Elder said, this is truly a straw man, and logic that says If A=B, and B is related to C, then A MUST equal C. That's a fallacy.

The Gospel at its core has nothing to do with your or I. It's just simply the good news that salvation is available. Then we hear through one who is sent, and he tells us how to get in on this covenant.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Adino this is a strawman you know we believe ALL mankind's sins were remitted by His blood at Calvary. However to appropriate that remission of sins afforded at Calvary ONLY occurs to the penitent in baptism in Jesus Name....ONLY in immersion by having His name invoked do we recieve the remission of sins through Calvary's blood.

Welcome back, Steve. Sorry again to hear of your loss.

This is far from a strawman position. You CANNOT say sins WERE historically remitted before the resurrection and we only need to APPROPRIATE that remission through a present 'application of the blood' (as you said before) when it was the historic application of Christ's blood which brought the pre-resurrection remission in the first place. The blood of Christ is not applied multiple times to the same sins.

It is not a matter of 'applying' the finished work of the Cross to man. It is a matter of man coming to terms with the truthfulness of the testimony of God concerning the remission of his sins on the Cross. Whether you believe it or not, the historic reality of sin remission exists. The sins imputed to Christ are GONE whether you choose to 'appropriate' the remission or not. Your acceptance or rejection of this historical reality has no bearing on whether it happened..... it happened.

Tell us outright. Do you believe sins are remitted in baptism? Yes or No?

What is the blood being applied to in baptism? You've already conceded that our sins were remitted before the resurrection. If they are historically removed, what is the blood being applied to in baptism?

Looking for some consistency in your position, Bro.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

He knew no sin. He was the prophesied substitute, the second Adam, taking away the sins of the world. Now we could come to Christ, and not just have our sins pushed forward, but no longer as a burden over our heads --- yes, remitted. Like the Elder said, this is truly a straw man, and logic that says If A=B, and B is related to C, then A MUST equal C. That's a fallacy.

The Gospel at its core has nothing to do with your or I. It's just simply the good news that salvation is available. Then we hear through one who is sent, and he tells us how to get in on this covenant.

Our sins were imputed to him who "knew no sin." It was his innocence which made the imputation possible.

We cannot say we are baptized in order to do something already accomplished. If we say sins are remitted in baptism, then we must conclude they were NOT remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection.

Likewise, if we say the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism, then we must conclude His blood was not applied to them on the Cross prior to the resurrection. The resurrection proves this as nonsense. The resurrection proved, beyond all doubt, that all sin imputed to Christ had been remitted by a pre-resurrection application of the Blood.

The Gospel is Good News of a finished work of sin remission, it is not Good News of a future work of sin remission made available. The latter is another gospel than that of Scripture.

The Gospel, at its core, has everything to do with Good News. The resurrection is Good News because it declares something magnificent concerning our sins. It declares that the Cross was effective in its work of sin remission. It declared that God's plan of sin remission ...... actually worked.

GrowingPains, would Christ have been raised without the removal of those sins imputed to him? Did the resurrection declare that the sins imputed to Christ had been effectively remitted? Yes or No?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Adino

Our sins were imputed to him who "knew no sin." It was his innocence which made the imputation possible.

We cannot say we are baptized in order to do something already accomplished. If we say sins are remitted in baptism, then we must conclude they were NOT remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection.

Likewise, if we say the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism, then we must conclude His blood was not applied to them on the Cross prior to the resurrection. The resurrection proves this as nonsense. The resurrection proved, beyond all doubt, that all sin imputed to Christ had been remitted by a pre-resurrection application of the Blood.

The Gospel is Good News of a finished work of sin remission, it is not Good News of a future work of sin remission made available. The latter is another gospel than that of Scripture.

The Gospel, at its core, has everything to do with Good News. The resurrection is Good News because it declares something magnificent concerning our sins. It declares that the Cross was effective in its work of sin remission. It declared that God's plan of sin remission ...... actually worked.

GrowingPains, would Christ have been raised without the removal of those sins imputed to him? Did the resurrection declare that the sins imputed to Christ had been effectively remitted? Yes or No?

Does a man have to repent to be saved? Confess Christ? Interested in your answer.

[SeekingOne]

[Adino]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Does a man have to repent to be saved? Confess Christ? Interested in your answer.

Paul held back nothing preaching repentance and faith. The repentant heart must return to God via faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. Those who externally confess Christ are to be accepted into the Church as being saved. It was upon the rock of a confession of Christ that the Church was to be built. This verbal confession historically took place at the baptismal event.

Baptism, being the eperotema (the answer) of a good conscience toward God, declared the purged conscience of the person being baptized. Only those whose hearts had come to rest in the historic sin remission of the Cross were to be baptized picturing their personal resurrection to new life.

[Kim Komando]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Yes, I do agree. My faith is in Christ and His promises.

He's promised certain things through repentance and water baptism, all covenants made available through the atonement. It wasn't enough for him to die, but I must effectuates and provides a sign of our covenant with Him.

Baptism is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.

Since the covenant with Abraham used circumcision as its sign (Gen 17), did God care about who was circumcised? Can you think of any OT stories where the enemy was referred to as "the uncircumcised?" Do you think it's pretty imporant, this sign he's given us? Circumcision was important enough that Moses' wife circumcised her son, and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet! (Exodus 4). Would the "new circumcision" also be equally important (Col 2)?

Please explain the multitude of scriptures that combine references of sin and baptism. I'm more in the mood to discuss now. And I will ask questions from the other side too Happy Friday.

I'm trying to figure out your position here, GP

First you state that God has promised certain thing to us through repentance and water baptism.

Then carefully choose your words to say the baptism is merely a sign and representation which fits what most of Orthodox Protestanism believes and not the traditional view of many Apostolics who say that if the baptism isn't performed correctly there is no application of the blood for the remission of sin or removal of the "old man".

As for the verses you provided to what baptism represents I did not see one that links it to a circumcision. Although there a couple you can try to attest to.

I don't think all of your verses substantiate your claims fully, however.

Can we agree that many of the verses in the NT do not necessarily point to water baptism as essential TO BE, OR GET, SAVED INTITIALLY - OR WHAT WE TERM AS THE NEW BIRTH? And can we agree that not all instances point to water baptism but Spirit baptism, of which Jesus, John the Baptism, and even Peter recognized as a work Christ came to bear?

Some other questions:

Most accept Romans 6 to point to water baptism but the entire passage seems to say it represents his death, burial and resurrection? Do you disagree?

We agree that it represents a union of Christ with the believer that would come through the Spirit.

Acts 22:19, to many is not interpreted to mean that baptism represents the washing of sins. Many believe this command to be baptism was coupled with Ananias telling Paul to himself call on the name of the Lord, which scripturally means to have faith/believe in the testator of a covenant for the washing of sins.

I will also grant you that the Red Sea is a typology of baptism and possibly speaks of both water and Spirit baptism as we see in 1 Cor. 10. Still a representation is to be stressed here.

Lastly, I have to disagree that the passage in 1 Cor. 12 has anything to do with water baptism and falls under what many would consider prooftexting. The entire chapter is speaking of the work and gifts of the Spirit.

And so if we can accept that baptism like circumcision is a sign,seal,representation and does not have to be properly done for there to be a New Birth, or the application of the blood for the washing of sins, or a command that causes initial salvation - we might agree. Although this would not be your traditional Apostolic view.

Also if you would speak more as to the following:

1. You are aware that Abraham was justified, credited as to being right with God for 17 years between the establishment of the covenant and his circumcision?

2. Do you think that this physical representation, water baptism, is a picture of what an inward work of the Spirit has done in our regeneration and circumcision of the heart.

This is what Paul seems to say about inward circumcision and it's value:

Romans 2:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Your thoughts on Romans 2?

How does this all fit your conclusion that " I must effectuate and provide a sign of covenant with Him"?