Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

Perhaps. But more than likely repentance, baptism, confessing Jesus, living a faithful life etc. are more a response to faith.

There is another possibility: A cause having two effects, where neither effect causes the other. So then, here is the point a Calvinist or Fundamentalist or Evangelical might make: It is possible faith causes salvation, and faith also causes baptism, but baptism does NOT cause salvation.

It's like a tree trunk and its branches. The trunk is faith. One branch is salvation. One branch is baptism. The two branches stem from the same trunk, yet the branch of salvation does not stem from the branch of baptism. They have a common cause, but one effect does not cause the other effect.

With this in mind, let's look at Peter's words again:

"Repent and be baptised everyone of you for the forgiveness of sins."

(Acts 2:38)​

Now Peter might be speaking of two effects of faith (repentance and baptism) where only one of these effects (repentance) "causes" God to forgive sins. Here faith would be the tree trunk, with repentance and salvation being one branch, and baptism being another branch. That is, (1) faith causes repentance, which causes salvation, and (2) faith causes baptism and other good works, but (2) is not the cause of (1). In other words, Peter might be saying something like, "Repent so God forgives you, then show others you have repented by getting baptised." In such case, it's the repenting that saves, not the showing.

Please understand I'm not saying this is the way things are. They might not be. I'm just saying Calvinists, Evangelicals and other good Christians are not being illogical nor twisting scripture in their beliefs about how one is saved. The Bible is ambiguous enough to logically allow for their interpretation, I think.

But if I've somehow misrepresented what Calvinists believe, I hope Atpollard will add clarification.

 

[atpollard]

I do appreciate the time you took to investigate the relationship of faith and repentance, Atpollard. I hope that you will answer the question I've asked a few times: How can it be true we are saved through faith alone, since we are saved through faith AND repentance?

I'm thinking (1) and (2) are examples of both faith and repentance. Please explain why this is the same as faith alone.

Faith and repentance are both 'what I think/believe' and not 'what I do'.
"Faith alone" is not faith in isolation from everything else (including, for example, believing that I need to be saved - repentance).
"Faith alone" means faith apart from our good works ... we are saved because of what Jesus did and not because of what we did.

 

[Spockrates]

I wonder if there is middle ground here between the catholics and the calvinist? Is it possible both are the extreme?

I'm not sure what that middle ground would be. One says only the good works God created for us to do and empowers us to do contribute to our salvation, the other says the good works God created for us to do and empowers us to do do not contribute to our salvation but do contribute to our sanctification. The other responds that there is no difference between salvation and sanctification--they are one and the same process. In response the other says the distinction is clear, and sanctification saves no one but does result in an eternal reward for those so saved. So they go on, seeming to not allow for any middle ground. But perhaps I've missed something?

Do you see baptism as something we receive from God or something we do for God? Do you see it as a good work done to earn salvation?

Based on the verse below, who is doing what for who?

Colossians 2
11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I really don't know what to believe about water baptism. However, if Peter was speaking of baptism not by water but by the Holy Spirit--so that baptism is a metaphor for receiving the Holy Spirit--then it would in that case be something God does for me, instead of something I do for him.

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 2:38)​

In that case, the gift received would be the Holy Spirit himself.

Can't we consider baptism a gift from God to us just as faith and repentance are gifts? Is it possible that this is the middle ground? Isn't it pretty clear from this verse (and others) that the work being done is being done by God for us?

I know what calvinists would say, but what say you?

I say I agree, if baptism is defined as I just indicated.

I don't think we're comparing apples and oranges. Hasn't the bottom line for salvation always been obedience, whether to the Law of Moses or to the Law of Christ? What good is a faith that doesn't obey? It's dead, is it not?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how they can reconcile the words of Jesus with the words of Paul. Isn't doing the will of the Father work?

Jesus -
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Paul - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.

One possibility, as mentioned in my previous reply: One cause, two effects, with neither effect causing the other. Faith causes one to be saved. Faith causes one to do God's will. But doing God's will does not cause one to be saved. Therefore, we are saved through faith, but not through doing God's will.

The reasoning is logically sound, as there are no LEs (what students of logic use to refer to logical errors), but the conclusion may only be true if there are no FEs (what students of logic use to refer to factual errors).

 

[Spockrates]

Faith and repentance are both 'what I think/believe' and not 'what I do'.
"Faith alone" is not faith in isolation from everything else (including, for example, believing that I need to be saved - repentance).
"Faith alone" means faith apart from our good works ... we are saved because of what Jesus did and not because of what we did.

Yes, now I see. Thank you! And please forgive me for being so slow to understand.

I think it's a not the most accurate choice of words, though--whether it was Luther or some other good Christian who coined the phrase. "Faith apart from works" rather than "Faith alone" would be less likely to be misunderstood, I suppose. Maybe something was lost in the translation from German to English?

 

[Desert Snake]

If you read all of Paul's letters, you will see that he battled the Judaizers constantly. They were trying to get the newly converted Gentile christians to keep the WORKS of the law of Moses. We see Paul's arguments against this repeatedly throughout his writings. IMHO, Paul writes about works of the Law in Ephesian 2:9. It was doing these works that the Jews were boasting about.

There is nothing inherently wrong about keeping some of the works of the Law of Moses. It is only when someone elevates these actions in importance, to being above ones faith in G-d.

If the works in Ephesians 2:9 means no works of any kind, then please explain how making the decision to accept Jesus into your heart, repenting, and turning from your sins are not works. And how about confessing Jesus before men as Romans 10:9-10 tells us we must do to be saved? How is this not works?

Actually, those aren't ''works''. Those are actions related to faith. Works are things that have ''value'', or perceived value, outside of faith; ie, 'value on their own'.

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This is not a ''work''. This is an expression of faith.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Again, not a 'work'. A work is something that has perceived value outside of faith; an example, a Buddhist helps the poor, in the same manner as a Christian, these are both ''works'', however neither the actions of the Christian person, or the Buddhist person, are 'doing anything' related to salvation. It is simply something ''good'', that each person is doing.

Here is a question, are the actions of Christian, in this example, more ''righteous'', than the actions of the Buddhist? If they aren't, then why not? According to your theory, they would have to be more righteous, because they are connected to salvation through Jesus.

The verses are clear. Works do nothing for our salvation. Where they are 'noted' , somewhat, as having more value than the usual understanding, ie none, it is in Epistles which were later added to an existing canon, /Bible.

The churches trying to elevate works are trying to put their secular logic into religious doctrine, and it doesn't work.

 

[katiemygirl]

There is nothing inherently wrong about keeping some of the works of the Law of Moses. It is only when someone elevates these actions in importance, to being above ones faith in G-d.

Actually, those aren't ''works''. Those are actions related to faith. Works are things that have ''value'', or perceived value, outside of faith; ie, 'value on their own'.

This is not a ''work''. This is an expression of faith.

Again, not a 'work'. A work is something that has perceived value outside of faith; an example, a Buddhist helps the poor, in the same manner as a Christian, these are both ''works'', however neither the actions of the Christian person, or the Buddhist person, are 'doing anything' related to salvation. It is simply something ''good'', that each person is doing.

Here is a question, are the actions of Christian, in this example, more ''righteous'', than the actions of the Buddhist? If they aren't, then why not? According to your theory, they would have to be more righteous, because they are connected to salvation through Jesus.

The verses are clear. Works do nothing for our salvation. Where they are 'noted' , somewhat, as having more value than the usual understanding, ie none, it is in Epistles which were later added to an existing canon, /Bible.

The churches trying to elevate works are trying to put their secular logic into religious doctrine, and it doesn't work.

Keeping any work of the Law of Moses would be very wrong. If we try to keep even a small part of the Law, Paul says we nullify the grace of God.

I agree with what you wrote. You said it very well.

What I cannot understand is why nearly all evangelicals say that the act of baptism is a work. How is baptism any more a work than confession, especially in light of Col. 2:11-14 where Paul calls baptism a cicumcision without hands, a working of God.

You said a work has a perceived value outside of faith. I agree with you. So I ask, does the act of baptism have perceived value outside of faith.

I don't think you really understand my theory. I do not believe works save, but I don't believe you cannot be saved without them either. James, in chapter 2, makes it clear. Faith without works is dead. Can someone with dead faith be saved?

Jesus was pretty clear on this issue as well in Matthew 25.

31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[Desert Snake]

Keeping any work of the Law of Moses would be very wrong. If we try to keep even a small part of the Law, Paul says we nullify the grace of God.

I agree with what you wrote. You said it very well.

What I cannot understand is why nearly all evangelicals say that the act of baptism is a work. How is baptism any more a work than confession, especially in light of Col. 2:11-14 where Paul calls baptism a cicumcision without hands, a working of God.

The issue with baptism, I believe, is that people often miss the 'meaning' or import, in the fact that Jesus does not baptize as would John, or someone in the church, etc. When Jesus was baptized, this was something that Jesus did, not as a ''saving'' work or action, but as a 'custom'. We clearly are told that the baptism performed by Jesus is completely different from the church ceremony, so clearly the church ceremonial baptism is not 'saving' us, as communion, and other church customs are not 'saving' us, either. If church baptism actually saves us, as many believe, then this means, (and some do believe this), that Jesus was essentially saved in the same manner as others, at His baptism. The misunderstanding, from Scripture, is from an ''occurence'', that happened at the time of Jesus's baptism. However, this idea doesn't really make sense. Because we are also told that it is the baptism by Jesus, which saves, and further told that it is completely different from Johns baptism.
The church baptism, or baptism in general, ie 'water baptism', is done ''in the name of Jesus'', not ''by Jesus''. No one is becoming Jesus in the ceremony, nor do they have the ability, or authority, to declare that their water baptism is the 'same' as Jesus's baptism, which is done by Jesus Himself.

You said a work has a perceived value outside of faith. I agree with you. So I ask, does the act of baptism have perceived value outside of faith.

It shouldn't. Or, if it does, it should not be thought of as an aspect that is somehow adding to our merits toward salvation.

I don't think you really understand my theory. I do not believe works save, but I don't believe you cannot be saved without them either. James, in chapter 2, makes it clear. Faith without works is dead. Can someone with dead faith be saved?

Jesus was pretty clear on this issue as well in Matthew 25.

31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Yes, however, let me put it this way. Does not sinning, save us? It might, we are told not to sin, yet not sinning is not a guarantee of salvation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Keeping any work of the Law of Moses would be very wrong. If we try to keep even a small part of the Law, Paul says we nullify the grace of God.

I agree with what you wrote. You said it very well.

What I cannot understand is why nearly all evangelicals say that the act of baptism is a work. How is baptism any more a work than confession, especially in light of Col. 2:11-14 where Paul calls baptism a cicumcision without hands, a working of God.

You said a work has a perceived value outside of faith. I agree with you. So I ask, does the act of baptism have perceived value outside of faith.

I don't think you really understand my theory. I do not believe works save, but I don't believe you cannot be saved without them either. James, in chapter 2, makes it clear. Faith without works is dead. Can someone with dead faith be saved?

Jesus was pretty clear on this issue as well in Matthew 25.

31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This is a good argument. However, if you are presenting this as purely literal, then almost no one is saved.

 

[atpollard]

This is a good argument. However, if you are presenting this as purely literal, then almost no one is saved.

Why almost no one?
Taken literally, Matthew 25 could just as easily imply half saved and half lost.
(Just curious on how you reached that conclusion.)

 

[katiemygirl]

"disciple, post: 4248748, member: 41066"]The issue with baptism, I believe, is that people often miss the 'meaning' or import, in the fact that Jesus does not baptize as would John, or someone in the church, etc. When Jesus was baptized, this was something that Jesus did, not as a ''saving'' work or action, but as a 'custom'. We clearly are told that the baptism performed by Jesus is completely different from the church ceremony, so clearly the church ceremonial baptism is not 'saving' us, as communion, and other church customs are not 'saving' us, either. If church baptism actually saves us, as many believe, then this means, (and some do believe this), that Jesus was essentially saved in the same manner as others, at His baptism. The misunderstanding, from Scripture, is from an ''occurence'', that happened at the time of Jesus's baptism. However, this idea doesn't really make sense. Because we are also told that it is the baptism by Jesus, which saves, and further told that it is completely different from Johns baptism.
The church baptism, or baptism in general, ie 'water baptism', is done ''in the name of Jesus'', not ''by Jesus''. No one is becoming Jesus in the ceremony, nor do they have the ability, or authority, to declare that their water baptism is the 'same' as Jesus's baptism, which is done by Jesus Himself.

I spent a great deal of time studying baptism. John baptized with only water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. It is my opinion that Jesus baptizes us with the Spirit when we are immersed in water.

Yes, however, let me put it this way. Does not sinning, save us? It might, we are told not to sin, yet not sinning is not a guarantee of salvation.

First of all, we all sin. If any Jew could have kept the Law of Moses perfectly, then he/she could be saved. There would have been no need for Jesus to shed His blood. But we know that not sinning is impossible. The same can be said for now. If a person could live sin free under the Law of Christ, he/she would be saved. There'd be no need for a savior. But no one is perfect and sinless.

By the way, Peter said, "Baptism does now save you." 1 Peter 3:21

I don't think Peter meant that the act saves us. I think he was talking about when we are saved, the moment in time, which is at our baptism.

Our immersion is a picture of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. We die to sin. We are buried (in water). We rise (out of the water) a new man.

Paul wrote in Romans 6:7 that when we die (to sin), we are set free from sin.

It seems to me baptism is necessary. After all, Jesus commanded it. That, in itself, makes it necessary.

 

[katiemygirl]

This is a good argument. However, if you are presenting this as purely literal, then almost no one is saved.

No, I don't think Jesus meant Himself personally. I think He meant our fellow man. I think Jesus was pretty much saying what James was in James 2.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I don't think Jesus meant Himself personally. I think He meant our fellow man. I think Jesus was pretty much saying what James was in James 2.

No, I didn't mean that, Jesu is not talking about getting baptized, or such.

 

[Spockrates]

I just wanted to thank everyone for helping me think this through. What I learned:

1. We are saved by grace
2. We are saved through repentance
3. So although we are saved through faith, we are not saved through faith alone
4. Repentance and faith are conditions we must meet to receive saving grace
5. So grace is conditional and
6. If grace is at least love, then it is a conditional love and
7. So God's love is not always unconditional

 

[katiemygirl]

I just wanted to thank everyone for helping me think this through. What I learned:

1. We are saved by grace
2. We are saved through repentance
3. So although we are saved through faith, we are not saved through faith alone
4. Repentance and faith are conditions we must meet to receive saving grace
5. So grace is conditional and
6. If grace is at least love, then it is a conditional love and
7. So God's love is not always unconditional

Thank you for a good and thoughtful discussion.

I pretty much agree with your conclusions except you left out baptism. Peter said, Baptism doth also now save you." (1Pet. 3:21) I have no reason to not believe Peter. The moment someone insinuates that this verse (or Acts 2:38, for that matter) means something other than what it says, red flags go up all over the place for me. For someone to say that "baptism doth NOT now save you" is to contradict Peter.

Good thread, my friend! God bless you!

 

[Spockrates]

Thank you for a good and thoughtful discussion.

I pretty much agree with your conclusions except you left out baptism. Peter said, Baptism doth also now save you." (1Pet. 3:21) I have no reason to not believe Peter. The moment someone insinuates that this verse (or Acts 2:38, for that matter) means something other than what it says, red flags go up all over the place for me. For someone to say that "baptism doth NOT now save you" is to contradict Peter.

Good thread, my friend! God bless you!

Thanks, KatieMyGirl. Your thoughts were extremely helpful, and I think you are correct about baptism.


Do you think I also am correct in thinking that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus also saves us?

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
(John 6)​

 

[Spockrates]

KattieMyGirl:

I mean, I'm assuming the word saved means receive eternal life. So eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood seems to be a condition for living forever just as much as baptism does. But what do you think?

 

[Spockrates]

Or maybe I've asked you to think too much!

Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. Take care and may God richly bless.

 

[katiemygirl]

Thanks, KatieMyGirl. Your thoughts were extremely helpful, and I think you are correct about baptism.


Do you think I also am correct in thinking that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus also saves us?

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
(John 6)​

Very good question!

In order for me to answer, I would have to determine exactly what Jesus meant when He said, "eat the flesh, drink the blood."

Is this a direct reference to the Lord's Supper? Or is this figurative language which means something else ? I think so.

If we look back in the chapter, Jesus calls Himself the bread of life in verse 35.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Sounds like eating the flesh means coming to Jesus and drinking the blood means believing in Him. It is a spiritual eating and drinking, not a physical one.

So my answer to your question is a resounding YES!

 

[Desert Snake]

I spent a great deal of time studying baptism. John baptized with only water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. It is my opinion that Jesus baptizes us with the Spirit when we are immersed in water.

I don't believe this. This is stating that the person baptizing has the authority or ability to save people. That is outrageous, no offense.

First of all, we all sin. If any Jew could have kept the Law of Moses perfectly, then he/she could be saved. There would have been no need for Jesus to shed His blood. But we know that not sinning is impossible. The same can be said for now. If a person could live sin free under the Law of Christ, he/she would be saved. There'd be no need for a savior. But no one is perfect and sinless.

This is either a mistranslation, a misinterpretation. This is an antichrist concept in the fullest extent, the power of the ''church'', taking precedence over that of Jesus.

By the way, Peter said, "Baptism does now save you." 1 Peter 3:21

I don't think Peter meant that the act saves us. I think he was talking about when we are saved, the moment in time, which is at our baptism.

Again, this is a disturbing infiltration of ''magic'' into the body of Christ, ie Xians or followers of Jesus.

Our immersion is a picture of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. We die to sin. We are buried (in water). We rise (out of the water) a new man.

Paul wrote in Romans 6:7 that when we die (to sin), we are set free from sin.

It seems to me baptism is necessary. After all, Jesus commanded it. That, in itself, makes it necessary.

I don't believe that baptism is necessary. Jesus would have stated this explicitly, and emphatically, if this were the case. Jesus never commands baptism, He simply endorsed Johns methodology of introducing people into Xianity, becoming followers of Jesu and dropping their former faiths.

 

[atpollard]

I don't believe that baptism is necessary. Jesus would have stated this explicitly, and emphatically, if this were the case. Jesus never commands baptism, He simply endorsed Johns methodology of introducing people into Xianity, becoming followers of Jesu and dropping their former faiths.

For what it might be worth, I also do not believe that baptism with water (the act performed by men) is essential to receive justification from God based upon the completed work of Jesus Christ.
I would probably argue that Baptism with the Holy Spirit (an act performed by God) probably is essential to receive justification from God, but that both the spiritual baptism and the justification are part of God being God.

Where I think that one can go too far in dismissing baptism with water (the act performed by men) is in the failure to acknowledge that it is actually commanded in the bible. Thus to adamantly refuse to make a public statement that you are aligning yourself with the cause and lordship of Jesus Christ by being baptized with water (by men) shows either a cowardly or a rebellious heart and is a deliberate and direct act of disobedience.

As far as any baptism that Jesus might directly perform, we have the comments from John the Baptist:

Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Mark 1:8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John 1:33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’​

Later on, in Acts chapter 1, Jesus tells them:

Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

And, of course, in Acts chapter 2:

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.​

So an argument can be made that Jesus did promise (and deliver) a very real baptism ... of course, it was not a baptism with water.


In addition, there is ...

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.​

... which could very well be Jesus claiming that both the baptism with water (by men) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (by God) are required for salvation/justification (although I have heard reasonable alternative interpretations of this verse).

So taking all of this together, it does not seem unreasonable for the experience of most Christians to reflect a reality in which the faith to be saved, the confession of that faith, the public demonstration of Baptism by water (by man), and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (by God) and salvation/justification of that person (by God) all occur in a very short period of time. Pulling apart which specific items are linked in a cause-effect relationship and which are coincidences of timing is a hair splitting best left to God. Opinions are welcome but absolute, universal 'certainty' seems highly unlikely.