Baptism Overview Authority of the Bible study Mans

Baptism: Overview “Authority of the Bible” study (Man's “authority” vs. God's “authority”) “False Doctrines of Man”, 8 -18 -2016.

The eternal importance of baptism “The only way people enter Christ is by baptism: "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6: 3 -4). Again, "For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 3: 26 -27). This is the way one enters the church. One cannot be in Christ and not be in His church. Neither can one be in His church without being in Christ. The church is His body. ” from “The New Testament Church” by H. Leo Boles.

“Is baptism essential to the salvation of my soul? ” There can be no more a direct and simple question for Christians, and likewise, there is no query within modern Christendom which has spawned more debate and division. What is the “role” of baptism within the Christian faith? Is baptism an indispensable facet of obedience as a Christian? Are Christians “saved” and THEN baptized, or are they baptized and thus “saved”? Multiple “faiths” and “denominations” hold very differing and opposing views on this topic, which often leads to bitter debate between opposing camps. What does the Bible say?

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” “Baptism is not a requirement of salvation, but it is a requirement of obedience. Jesus Himself was baptized by John the Baptist – and He requires that His followers be baptized as well”…. . Park Cities Baptist Church, Dallas.

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” “Baptism is a picture and an illustration —a symbolic act. It illustrates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf and our subsequent faith in Him. It is not necessary for salvation, but is strongly associated with salvation as it best illustrates our new identity with Jesus Christ. ". . . … Second Baptist Church, Houston, TX.

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” "Missionary Baptists believe that salvation is entirely by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and His atoning work for our sins, which salvation cannot be obtained by any other means whatsoever, not by baptism, nor by personal good works of any kind". . . MISSIONARY BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES by John R. Blalock.

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” “Do I have to be baptized in order to be saved? No, but baptism is a gift of God's grace to be received as part of the journey of salvation. . ”. From “FAQs: Baptism”, United Methodist Church, www. umc. org

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” ". . . we are saved by grace. . … Baptism is a response to God's gift, not a way to earn God's gift. . . " Max Lucado, from “God's Grace versus Man's Grace” by Bobby H. Holmes.

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” "There are those who have taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, as if baptism adds to the finished work of Christ. We have felt that baptism is necessary for obedience, but that baptism doesn't add to what Christ does for us in the cross, and doesn't add to what a person receives by faith. . I came to a better understanding of grace that I didn't have before. . There was some latent legalism in me—and there probably still is. So we started studying the Gospel, and I personally found out that I was kind of overlaying the Gospel with regulations and rules. And so I repented of that, and we began teaching the Gospel. "

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” “In a television interview in Nashville, Tennessee, July 2, 1997, Max Lucado said: I believe in baptism. Jesus was baptized. The Bible teaches baptism. I just don't believe that baptism saves you. I believe that Jesus Christ saves us. And baptism is one of those ways we celebrate our salvation. It's really the initial step of the faithful believer. ” From “Max Lucado on Baptism” by Larry Ray Hafley, Guardian of Truth, 11 -6 -1997.

Examples of baptism being deemed “non-essential” "Baptism by immersion symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and is your public declaration that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Baptism does not save you, but shows the world that you have already been saved. And while baptism is not required for salvation, it is a biblical command demonstrates your love and obedience to Christ". . . … Rick Warren, from his website.

Mark 16: 16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (King James Bible). “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”, (NIV). “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (NASB).

Mark 16: 16 This seems to be as direct, simple, and understandable as any verse in the Bible could be…. Belief, followed by baptism, results in salvation, while a lack of belief would make every other facet of a Christian’s salvation irrelevant, a dead issue. Note not just the command of this verse, but the order that Christians are to follow…. this verse, regardless of the translation one uses, does NOT say “a person is saved and THEN baptized”, nor does any other verse in the New Testament. Baptism versa. precedes salvation, not vice

Mark 16: 16 “Jesus commanded baptism and that it was practiced in the book of Acts by the very first disciples of Christ. For what purpose did they preach and practice baptism? The simple answer to that question is found in Mark's account of the Great Commission. In Mark 16: 15 -16 Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. " This passage gives us the importance and purpose of baptism. Jesus commanded it because He requires it of those who want to be saved. This is one of those “un-get-aroundable” texts”. Jerry Brewer, NE Church of Christ, 3 -21 -2015.

Mark 16: 16 Let each of us pay special attention to this point… The attributed speaker is Jesus Christ Himself. If a person claims to be a “Christian”, then by definition, one must thus also be a follower or adherent of what Jesus SAID. The confusion and debate over baptism seems nonsensical, at best, based simply on this verse, which is negated NOWHERE else in the Bible. This verse is not a matter of one person’s “bias”, “interpretation”, or agenda…Jesus Christ said these words. Jesus Christ equated baptism with salvation. Therefore, those who argue otherwise, that baptism is NOT an essential facet of salvation, by definition, oppose Jesus.

Mark 16: 16 “The preaching of the gospel imposes duties and responsibilities upon those who hear it. Here (Mark 16: 16), it imposes faith and baptism. Water baptism is a command, not a promise…. Baptism in the commission is an act of obedience performed by the believer, and therefore it is a command…. ”. from “The Gospel According To Mark”, by CEW Dorris, Gospel Advocate, page 387.

Mark 16: 16…. . saved and THEN baptized? “The doctrine of salvation before baptism changes the order and tenses of the verbs in Mark 16: 16. The passage reads : “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. ” To fit the doctrine of faith salvation without baptism it would read : “He that believeth and is saved shall (or may) be baptized. ' But Jesus did not say is saved nor shall be baptized. He said is baptized and shall be saved. The change in the order necessary. . . to get salvation before baptism involves a change in the tenses of the verbs the Lord used. That is simply too much change for anybody to make who has an ounce of respect for the word of God" (Foy E. Wallace, Jr. , The Bible Banner, Dec. , 1941).

Mark 16: 16…. saved THEN baptized? “In every place in the Bible where baptism and salvation are mentioned in the same connection, baptism is always mentioned before salvation. Mark 1: 4. "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. 1. Baptism. 2. Remission of sins. Luke 3: 3. "Preaching the baptism of

Matthew 28: 18 -19 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”. Here, in the midst of “The Great Commission”, Jesus instructs his followers to spread the word of the Gospel, and to baptize, and how to properly baptize. These are the words of Christ, as stated earlier, and it seems difficult to fathom why supposed “followers” of Christ would deny/ignore/object to such clear and unambiguous wording.

Acts 22: 16 “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ”. Saul is NOT told to simply “believe”…. . he is NOT yet saved. He is told, quite clearly, what he is to do, and being baptized is his directive.

Acts 22: 16 “Do you think the apostle Paul later went about telling folks that baptism was, "necessary, but not essential to be saved. . . ? Did Paul ever teach that one should "get saved" then be baptized? No. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16: 16) and Paul declared "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20: 26). Saul of Tarsus---Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ---was saved when he was baptized into Christ, as all men must do if they are ever saved from sin”…. from “The Baptism of Saul of Tarsus” by Jerry Brewer.

Acts 10: 48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord…” Was Cornelius ALREADY saved, as many denominations now believe and teach, or was he saved AFTER baptism?

Acts 10: 48 and the “order” of baptism “Just before our Lord ascended to Heaven He plainly said that belief plus baptism equals salvation. Moreover, every conversion account in the book of Acts places baptism before salvation. As Peter wrote “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3: 21). And, that is the reason the believing Saul of Tarsus was told to be baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22: 16), and the reason Peter commanded the believers, Cornelius and his household, to be baptized (Acts 10: 48). ” Contending for the Faith—July/August/2015, page 23, Howard Daniel Denham

Romans 6: 3 -7 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. ”

Commentary on Romans, on 6: 3, by David Lipscomb, page 114. “We were baptized into his death to sin, became partakers of his death, and so died to sin as he did, and, as members of the body of Christ, we cannot live in sin. [The union with Christ, into which we enter by baptism, is thus more closely defined as union with his death…. by being “baptized into Christ”, we become, as it were, one with him…We are, then, dead to our former state].

1 Peter 3: 21 “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”. If baptism “now saves you”, how can any of us possibly refer to baptism as irrelevant, optional, or unnecessary? ?

James Burton Coffman Commentary on 1 Peter 3: 21 “The same water which destroyed the antediluvians was the water which bore up the ark and delivered Noah and his family into a new life. It is the water of baptism that destroys the wicked today, in the sense that they rebel against God's command, belittle and despise it, either refusing to do it at all, or downgrading any necessity of it, even if they submit to it; while at the same time, it is the water of

Acts 2: 37 -38 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2: 38 “Acts 2: 38 is very clear in terms of hermeneutics and exegetical structure…this verse alone should settle beyond the shadow of any doubt the relevance and importance of baptism”. from Dr. Ed Enzor, retired professor of Communications and Bible faculty, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX, phone interview, 10 -28 -2015.

Acts 2: 41 “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

from “Is Faith All That Is Required For Salvation? ” by Batsell Barrett Baxter. “In the book of Acts there are eight major conversions, given as models for all people of all time. In every case the gospel of Christ was preached, the people believed in their hearts, but they did not stop there. Their faith led them to make known their faith in some manner (confessing Christ as their Savior) and then they were baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Obedient faith is demonstrated very clearly in this example: They heard the gospel of Christ, they believed it, at which point they asked what they must then do. Peter told them to repent of their sins and to be baptized. When they had made their faith in Christ actual by obeying the conditions upon which salvation is given, the Scripture then tells us that they were added to the church or family of God. The same pattern is found in each of the other stories of conversion. But Biblical faith is more than mere belief. It is more than an intellectual commitment. It involves obedience: confession of Christ before men (Matthew 10: 32 -33), repentance for our sins (Luke 13: 3), and baptism for the forgiveness of our sins (Acts 2: 38). ”

“Eis” and the battle over Acts 2: 38 The most common opposition for baptism from Acts 2: 38 arises from Baptists, typically, who argue the following; that “for” (“eis” in Greek, G 1519 in Strong's Lexicon) in “FOR the remission of sins” is in the PAST tense…. .

“Eis” and the battle over Acts 2: 38 “Also, the words "for the remission" in that verse is a bad translation. It really says "because your sins have been remitted" meaning because you are already forgiven, now you may do it if you so choose”…. . Direct quote from “Once saved, always saved” Facebook page, 10 -14 - 2015.

“Eis” and the battle over Acts 2: 38 “Notice that both “repent” and “be baptized” are for the same purpose. Whatever repentance is for in this verse, so is baptism. The preposition “for” takes the accusative case, which denotes motion forward, and therefore means “in order to”, “unto”, and never means “because of”. The identical expression occurs in Mattthew 26: 28, “For this is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”. Surely no one would argue that Jesus died because men's sins were already forgiven; rather Jesus die in order that men's sins might be forgiven”…. From “Baptism is essential” by Max Patterson, Spiritual Sword, January 1998, page 17.

“The Greek term eis (for, εις) is found about 1, 750 times * in the New Testament*. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction. It is “an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction” (Balz, 398). The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, toward, etc. It is a goal-oriented term. Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs — “repent and be baptized” — connected with the prepositional phrase — “for the forgiveness of sins” — demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be “because of, ” thus conveying the sense, “on account of the forgiveness of your sins. " And why is that? Because it would equally affirm that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins. Who in the world subscribes to the notion that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already? That makes no sense at all”. From “The Preposition “Eis” in Acts 2: 38” by Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier.

“Eis” from www. biblehub. com Strong's Concordance (1519) eis: to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result) Short Definition: into, in, among, till, for Definition: into, in, unto, upon, towards, for, among. NOTE THAT “BECAUSE OF” IS NOT OFFERED AS A DEFINITION

“Eis” from www. biblehub. com Strong's Concordance (1519) eis: to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result) Short Definition: into, in, among, till, for Definition: into, in, unto, upon, towards, for, among. HELPS Word-studies 1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which"

Eis, from “A Second Look at Acts 2: 38”, National Road Church of Christ “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: “to obtain the forgiveness of sins, Acts ii. 38. ” (P. 94) Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "Eis" in Matt. 12: 41; Lk. 11: 32 ("with a view to the preaching of repentance") states the reason and denotes a logical connection. “In Acts 2: 38 eis denotes the direction of an action to a specific end as it does in Matt. 26: 28; Mk. 1: 4; Lk. 3: 3. ” Bauer’s A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: “to denote purpose in order to; forgiveness of sins; so that sins might be forgiven (Cf. Matt. 26: 28; cf. Mk. 1: 4; Lk. 3: 3; Acts 2: 38. ” The Expositor’s Greek Testament (R. J. Knowling): “Eis… signifying the aim (that is, the aim of the command is the forgiveness of sins). ”

“Baptism For The Remission Of Sins” by David Padfield. "I have never understood how Baptist preachers can make repentance a condition for salvation and then exclude baptism. They usually claim that repentance is "for" ("in order to obtain") the remission of sins and baptism is for ("because of") the remission of sins. However, the preposition "for" cannot express two different relationships to the two words-what it means to baptism it

“Baptism and the Greek Word “eis”” WWW. SIMPLYBIBLE. COM “…. you will notice that Peter does not speak of baptism only, but of both repentance and baptism. "Repent and let every one of you be baptized. . . for the forgiveness of sins. . . " (Acts 2: 38). If the argument places forgiveness before baptism, it also places forgiveness before repentance. In other words, a person should repent not to receive forgiveness, but because forgiveness has already taken place, and

Acts 2: 38, eis, the bottom line We are baptized IN ORDER to BE saved…. We are NOT baptized because we are ALREADY saved. To suggest such flies in the face of logic, dozens of Greek scholars and studies, the definition of “eis” itself, the New Testament, and the very words of Jesus Christ Himself.

Matthew 3 and the baptism of Jesus Matthew 3: 13 -17 provides us perhaps our strongest rationale for baptism; the perfect example of the Savior of all mankind, Jesus, who approaches John the Baptist, requesting baptism…

Matthew 3: 13 -17 “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him…“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. . .

Matthew 3 and the baptism of Jesus had not sinned in any way, nor would he throughout his lifetime, and would thus have no need for baptism for “remission of sins”, but why would Jesus, our perfect example to follow, engage in an action which pleased God, and yet would be OPTIONAL for us today? ?

HOW are we to baptize? "Let every adult Person, and the Parents of every Child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion" (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940 edition, p. 602)… Is this scriptural? ?

Baptism, as per multiple lexicographers. . (1) Bagster — "Baptizo, to dip, immerse; to cleanse or purify by washing. " (2) Bloomfield — "Baptizo; to immerse or sink anything in water or other liquid. " (3) Greenfield — "Baptizo: to immerse, submerge, sink. " (4) Liddell and Scott — "Baptizo: to dip in or under water. " (5) Robinson — "Baptizo; to immerse, to sink. " 6. Sophocles — "Baptizo: to dip, to immerse, to sink. " (7) Thayer — "Baptizo: to dip repeatedly, to immerge, to submerge. " (“Bible Baptism” by M. C. Kurfees, 5 -12 -1955 Gospel Guardian).

Baptism in the first century “The ancient mode of baptizing was by immersion, or by dipping the whole body of the person, whatever his age, into the water. . . ”. Christian Theology, Volume 2, page 452, Tomline.

“Bapto and Baptize mean to dip, plunge, or immerse, into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any sort are agreed on this”…. Mode of Christian Baptism, Moses Stuart, page 51. “The real action denoted by the verb baptize has been much debated in ‘the baptismal controversy’. There can be no doubt that the term, in its primary acceptation, denoted dipping, merging, immersing, whelming; this should never be disputed”, Commentary on Mark, James Morison, page 180.

Baptism or sprinkling? “Immersion for Baptism, not sprinkling or pouring water, is clearly taught in the Bible. “Much water” (Jn 3: 23). “Burial in water” (Col 2: 12; Rom 6: 3 -4). Only “one baptism” (Eph 4: 5). Bring the candidates to the water, not the water to the candidates”…… Leroy Brownlow, “Preach what you practice”.

Infant baptism…. Biblical?

Infant baptism. . . Biblical? “Paedobaptism, in the more modern sense, meaning thereby new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other sponsors, was utterly unknown in the early Church; not only down to the second century, but indeed to the middle of the third century”…. Christianity and Mankind, C. Bunsen, Volume II, page 106.

The rationale for infant baptism “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless

The “logic” of infant baptism “There is no record of a baby baptism to be found anywhere in all the Bible! There is not one word in the Book of God about baptizing babies. " (G. K Wallace's "Lectures on Denominational Dogmas, " Gospel Advocate Co. , Nashville, Tennessee [1956], pp. 84 -85).

Infant baptism “Only those who have reached the "age of accountability" are accepted for baptisms. It is pointed out that the examples given in the New Testament are always of those who have heard the gospel preached and have believed it. Faith must always precede baptism, so only those old enough to understand believe the gospel are considered fit subjects for baptism. ” From “Who are the Churches of Christ and What do they Believe? ” by Batsell Barrett Baxter.

How and why did infant baptism begin? “There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it does mean that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. . The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries. ” From “Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries” by Everett Ferguson, Abilene Christian University, pages 856 -857.

Does this mean that baptism, in and of itself, is ALL that is required for salvation? Church of Christ members are often accused of being “fixated”/”obsessed” with baptism (being referred to as “dunkers”, for example) and that baptism is the final and conclusive “step” in salvation. Is this accurate? Absolutely not. First and foremost, mankind can never EARN his way into heaven…all of us have sinned and fallen short of the perfection of God (Romans 3: 23) and thus grace becomes an absolute necessity for the salvation of each and every one of us.

Baptism is one facet, albeit an indispensable one, of the salvation of mankind…. . we are to hear the word (Romans 10: 17), we are to believe the word (Acts 8: 37, Mark 16: 16), we are to repent of our sins (Luke 13: 3 -5, Acts 2: 38), we are to confess our sins (1 John 1: 9), and, as we have seen repeatedly, we are to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2: 38, Acts 3; 19), as well as INTO Jesus Christ (Romans 6: 1 -4). Baptism does not serve as the final act of obedience; Christians are required and expected to remain devoted, dutiful, and dedicated to Jesus Christ after their baptism, and to continue their walk for the remainder of their lives

1 Corinthians 1: 17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect”… For MANY people, this serves as de facto “proof” that baptism is not a “necessity”……. since Paul was not “sent” to baptize, it MUST be optional or negligible, correct?

From “Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize” by Jon W. Quinn. “Some teach from this verse that Paul was not sent to baptize. That is obviously correct, for that is what the verse says. Paul was sent to preach the gospel. From this many will continue by suggesting that baptism is not, therefore, a part of the gospel, and since it is not a part of the gospel, it is not essential to salvation (Romans 1: 16)…. . Paul was saying Christ did not send him to personally baptize but he did send him to personally preach. In the context of this passage the Corinthian church was full of division and they need to become one again. Some were claiming to follow Paul, some Cephas, some Apollos and some were following Christ (1 Corinthians 1: 12 -13). The context indicates that Paul often followed the example of Jesus in teaching baptism but leaving the actual baptizing of new converts to others (cf. John 4: 1 -2)”. . . (continued)

From “Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize” by Jon W. Quinn. Some at Corinth were saying "I am of Paul" (1: 12). This kind of attitude is sinful and should never exist among Christians. Paul was thankful that he had not baptized more than he did because he was deeply offended that brethren were using his name in such a way so as to bring division to the body of Christ and rob Christ of His glory (1: 13 -15)…. No one baptized in the name of Paul is saved, but those baptized in the name of Christ are (Acts 2: 38). ” Thus, 1 Corinthians 1: 17 does NOT negate the need for baptism, as many claim.

“FAITH AND BAPTISM” by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. “The person whom the Bible designates a believer is one who having been persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, accepts him in implicit trust as his Saviour (John 20: 31). He is not one who has merely assented to gospel truth or fact, but one who has believed with all the heart; a belief that involves every faculty of his intelligent being—his reason, his sensibilities, his will (Rom. 10: 9, 10). The noun pistis, (faith) means confidence, trust. The verb pisteus (believe) means adherence to, reliance on.

“All I have to do is believe” utterly refuted. . . by Jesus. John 14: 21…. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. " John 14: 23…. Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 15: 10. . . If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. 1 John 2: 3. . . We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 1 John 5: 3. . . In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 2 John 1: 6. . . And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

“Faith alone” “Whatever justification by faith might mean it is certain that it includes obedience. "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5: l). When faith justifies the believer has peace. However, Paul had faith several days before he had peace. If faith only saves, Paul would have had peace the moment he believed. Since he did not have peace the moment he believed it is proof conclusive that he was not at that moment justified. Faith was engendered in the heart of Paul while he was on the road to Damascus. (Acts 9). When the Lord appeared to Paul (Saul) on the Damascus highway he believed but did not have peace until three days later. Peace came into his life when, in obedience to the will of God, he arose and was baptized. (Acts 22: 16)”. . from “What Justification by Faith Includes” by G. K. Wallace, Bible Banner, September 1938.

“Faith alone” "If the doctrine of salvation by 'Faith Only' is true, then Satan and his demons are saved (Jas. 2: 19). If the doctrine of salvation by 'Faith Only' is true, then the Chief Rulers who believed on Christ, but who, ' would not confess him lest they be put of the synagogue' (John 12: 42 -43) were saved. If the doctrine of salvation by 'Faith Only' is true, then the doctrine of Universalism is true, i. e. , all will be saved on the Day of Judgment. this is the case since the Bible declares that all will confess Jesus as Lord on the last day (Phil. 2: 10 -11); Rom. 14: 11). …if the doctrine of salvation by 'Faith Only' is true, then no one will be in hell. (Gary Grizzell, The Gospel Preceptor, May, 2000).

The “thief on the cross” and baptism Many today in various denominations seem compelled to argue that baptism is not “mandatory” as a matter of salvation…. Those who argue that baptism for the remission of sin is NOT a necessity for salvation will often cite the example of the “Thief on the Cross”. This famous story appears in Matthew 27: 38 -39, 44 as well as Luke 23: 39 -43. The Luke version seems to be the source of modern anti-baptism sentiment…

“Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us. " But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong. " Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom. " And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise. "

The thief cited in opposition to baptism “…. the thief on the cross did not experience baptism and yet that very day he was in the presence of the Lord. Luke 23: 42– 43 states, “And he was saying, ‘Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise. ’” Second, Paul in 1 Corinthians 1: 17 states, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. ” If baptism were required for salvation, Paul would never have made this claim. Thus, baptism is not essential for salvation". . . "What makes Baptism valid? " by Dr. Thomas White, The Center for Theological Research, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort

“In any consideration of the thief, one must keep in mind that the thief lived under the Old Testament. The writer of the book of Hebrews argues that a change of law was made. "For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7: 12). Hebrews 9: 16, 17 tell us when this change of law was effected. "For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. " Paul, in Rom. 7: 4, said: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ. " Prior to the death of Christ, the Old Testament was in force. After his death, the New Testament became effective. It is obvious, therefore, that we live in the New Testament era. It is equally obvious that when Jesus said "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" the thief was yet under the Old Testament, since this remark was made prior to the death of Christ. Whatever might be shown to be true concerning the salvation of the thief is of no relevance to our salvation, since he lived under a different law from that under which people today live. ” From "But What About the Thief on the Cross? " by Cecil Willis, Truth Magazine, July, 1968.

The thief on the cross “Baptism was ushered in with the New Testament. The thief lived and died under the law of the Old Testament. A Testament is in force upon the death of the Testator, not before. (Hebrews 9: 1617). Prior to Christ's death and the ushering in of the New Testament through His blood (Matt. 26: 28), Jesus was able to forgive

"The New Covenant went into effect when Christ died on the cross. People who deny that baptism has any thing to do with salvation, (despite Mk. 16: 16, Acts 2: 38, 1 Pet. 3: 21), often speak of being saved as was the thief on the cross. But no one today can be saved as was the thief. We live on the other side of the cross. The new Covenant is in force now. While Jesus lived he could forgive sins upon any terms that He so desired. But when He died, the last will and testament went into force, and its stipulations are binding upon all who desire to be saved. There must be obedience to its terms in order to be saved. It matters not whether the thief on the cross (or Adam, or Noah, or Moses, or Elijah) was baptized. We are not living under the same law as was the thief. We today must believe, (John 8: 24) Repent, (Acts 17: 30) Confess our faith in Christ, (Rom. 10: 10) and be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2: 38)". . . Gospel Guardian, 9 -28 -1961, "The Beginning" --- Acts 11: 15 by Jerry C. Ray.

The thief’s baptism We know almost nothing about this “thief”……we do not know history, his hometown, his occupation, his family genealogy, whether he had children or a family, his supposed “crime”, nor do we even know his name. With such scant information, how can we possibly presume to know if he had been baptized or not? ? Is it not equally (or even more) likely that he HAD been baptized? Why is his baptism not being mentioned proof for many that he had not been baptized?

The thief’s baptism We do know that many came to hear John the Baptist preaching (see Matthew 3: 5 -6) and we likewise know from scripture that many were thus baptized…. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

The thief's baptism It is indeed possible that this unnamed thief MAY have been a part of the throng that heard and received John the Baptizer’s message. He may have been baptized or he may not have been…… We simply do not know, but decrees based on this scenario that baptism is “optional” when we have no idea if this man had been baptized or not seems to be a wild reach. Considering the remainder of the New Testament dictates on baptism, it seems equally, if not more valid, to presume he HAD been baptized.

From “What about the Thief on the Cross? ” from www. granbychurchofchrist. org. . “The Bible never tells us for sure whether or not the thief was baptized. The Bible never says the thief was baptized. It also never says he wasn't. Anyone using the thief on the cross to support the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is basing their beliefs on something that 1) does not in any way support their position and 2) is improvable. What we need to take from this is that if someone is going to make a decision that is going to have eternal consequences, then they need to make those decisions based on facts and not on assumptions. We need to make decisions that effect our eternal souls on fact and not on guesses or feelings. ”

The thief's baptism While on earth, Jesus Christ had the power and authority to forgive sin, on the spot, and as He saw fit (see Mark 2: 5 and “When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you”, Mark 2: 910 with “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? ” and also Luke 7: 37 -50). Thus, whether the thief had been baptized or not again becomes irrelevant, in that Jesus possessed the authority to tell the man he would soon join him in paradise.

The thief’s baptism Repeatedly throughout the New Testament, the absolute and paramount importance of baptism is emphasized (perhaps most directly in Mark 16: 16). Why would a command which is seen and read over and over suddenly and inexplicably be tossed aside with the Thief on the Cross story? ? And would such a sudden shift in the importance of baptism not, by definition, make both the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself liars? ?