i have one question: what about the thief on the cross? we see in Luke 23:39-44 that there were two thieves crucified beside Jesus, one mocked Jesus and the other defended Jesus because he believed in who Jesus said He was. Jesus said to that thief “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”(43b), and we know Jesus can’t sin so he couldn’t have lied to this thief, therefore the thief was saved through belief and without baptism. I do believe baptism is a key part in our faith and that it should be practiced after salvation, and i also understand the Bible to say that baptism doesn’t constitute salvation.
in Romans 10:9 we see “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”, this confession and belief is where salvation would lie, we often tie verbal confession and baptism together which isn’t a bad practice at all but it can cause some confusion among denominations.
so instead of “belief and baptism”, i think it’s more biblically accurate to say “belief and confession”, so to conclude my comment i’ll quote Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:14 “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
so instead of “belief and baptism”, i think it’s more biblically accurate to say “belief and confession”
You said the above after a grammatical exegesis of Jesus' words. IF you were there on the day Jesus spoke the words, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saves, would you have corrected Jesus?
i’d love to continue this conversation further but we seem to have fallen into the category of Titus 3:9, which states “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because they are unprofitable and useless”. i respect how you stand firm in what you believe to be true and that you have a great pursuit of knowledge but from this point on i don’t see much fruit.
thank you for engaging in this debate with me, i’m glad we could keep it respectful even though we have different stances and i look forward to reading more of your work, once again, please continue in your faithfulness towards the Lord.
no, Titus 3:9 does not apply here. I am only speaking where the Bible speaks. You are espousing the doctrine that claims faith alone or, worse yet, belief saves.
You understand that, baptism aside, belief is a work? So saying that all one has to do is believe and salvation is not of works are contradictory statements as you are using them.
i can assure you that neither of us are going to change our stance; therefore, to continue the conversation further will be unproductive and useless. so again i thank you for the debate, it was very engaging and i pray your faith will remain unwavering.
fair enough, but you disengaged when things got hard for you. It was not a debate. It it was, it was rather one sided. You have an issue with context and overall understanding of Scripture.
You talked yourself into a belief only salvation in opposition to what you perceive to be a works salvation which is absurd as belief itself is a work according to Jesus.
Don't pit verses against each other. That is your biggest issue.
great question, it provides a different perspective so thank you. i wouldn’t have corrected Jesus because He never said that those who aren’t baptized will be condemned and it’s never said in the Bible.
the root of this is a Negative Inference Fallacy which states: “if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are also true” for example the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is a true statement, however, the negation “if a dog does not have brown spots is not an animal” is a false statement, a fallacy.
same with this verse: “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is a true statement, however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” the same fallacy as the first example.
a specific example of condemnation can be found in the second half of that verse in Mark 16:16 “...whoever does not believe will be condemned” notice how it doesn’t say “whoever doesn’t believe and is not baptized will be condemned” what Jesus is doing here is mentioning a condition related to baptism, this relation should not be confused with a requirement
i wouldn’t have corrected Jesus because He never said that those who aren’t baptized will be condemned and it’s never said in the Bible.
But that is what Jesus' words mean. That is the point of His statement.
One who is not baptized for the correct reasons with the understanding of what one is doing can not be saved as they will not be a child of God by faith in Christ having put on Christ.
Your objection here is fallacious and is not often used even by the staunch "faith alone" crowd.
In order to be saved one has to believe and be baptized. In order to be damned one as to believe not. To assert that Jesus had to then say, now those who are not baptized are condemned too, is absurd.
"the root of this is a Negative Inference Fallacy which states: “if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are also true” for example the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is a true statement, however, the negation “if a dog does not have brown spots is not an animal” is a false statement, a fallacy."
This does not apply to Jesus' statement. Jesus sets two conditions for salvation. In order for what you have provided to be relevant you have to make being a dog and having spots the requisite for being an animal. Your statement is doing no such, thus the negative inference fallacy.
Jesus is stating that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. If both of those criteria are not met then one cannot be identified as saved.
Now, you could say, in order to be considered an animal one has to be a dog and have spots. That is not true, but the statement is proposing that in order to be identified as an animal one must be a dog an also have spots. It is not a logical fallacy to infer that the person making the statement considers biological organisms that are not dogs or dogs without spots are a not animals. According to the person making the erroneous statement, in order to be an animal one must be both a dog and spotted.
"a specific example of condemnation can be found in the second half of that verse in Mark 16:16 “...whoever does not believe will be condemned” notice how it doesn’t say “whoever doesn’t believe and is not baptized will be condemned” what Jesus is doing here is mentioning a condition related to baptism, this relation should not be confused with a requirement"
Again, Jesus laid out one clause giving the criteria for salvation and another for damnation. He does not have to redistribute the term, baptism, in the second clause.
see also: hermeneutics, using the Bible to interpret the Bible, this’ll bring clarity when studying one specific verse or passage, i love verse-by-verse breakdowns by the way so keep being faithful to the Lord
well, you did not rebut anything I said in the article. Also, to deny baptism is to deny Jesus. You quoted Paul, I'd offer a couple of passages from Paul:
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Notice how that under the New Covenant that those who are children of God by faith in Christ are those who have put on Christ and those who have put on Christ are those who have been baptized into Christ. Are are asserting that one can be right with God the Father and not be in Christ?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.
See here how that those who are in Christ are also buried with Christ and those who are buried with Christ are those who walk in newness of life. You are not asserting that one can be in a right relationship with God the Father without being buried with His Son are you?
I think maybe we need to take the Bible as a whole.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. It is very simple. Belief and baptism are both needed for salvation. Without either salvation is not had.
excellent points made, you show to have great Biblical knowledge, i’d love to point out that i do not deny baptism for i was baptized years ago, i don’t know if that statement was for me or for the people reading the comments, and lastly the main point is my initial question: what about the thief on the cross? the one who was promised salvation without being baptized
we both should understand that under the New Covenant we are given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift as seen in Ephesians 2:8-9 “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” this is one of the instructions we must follow under the New Covenant. this instruction explicitly states that no works provide salvation, it is only through faith.
Hebrews 11:1 gives us the definition of faith “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” notice how this verse does not relate to baptism whatsoever, it does however relate to belief as confidence and assurance.
in conclusion, i’d love to retract my initial statement that salvation is through belief and confession, it is strictly done through belief. confession is a relation to belief and more of a command for after salvation (belief). after we are saved by God’s grace and through faith; may then, we shall go and proclaim God’s grace by both word of mouth and baptism
i have one question: what about the thief on the cross? we see in Luke 23:39-44 that there were two thieves crucified beside Jesus, one mocked Jesus and the other defended Jesus because he believed in who Jesus said He was. Jesus said to that thief “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”(43b), and we know Jesus can’t sin so he couldn’t have lied to this thief, therefore the thief was saved through belief and without baptism. I do believe baptism is a key part in our faith and that it should be practiced after salvation, and i also understand the Bible to say that baptism doesn’t constitute salvation.
in Romans 10:9 we see “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”, this confession and belief is where salvation would lie, we often tie verbal confession and baptism together which isn’t a bad practice at all but it can cause some confusion among denominations.
so instead of “belief and baptism”, i think it’s more biblically accurate to say “belief and confession”, so to conclude my comment i’ll quote Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:14 “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
sorry for such a large comment, it’s hard to explain a topic in the Bible within a few short sentences.
one more thing:
so instead of “belief and baptism”, i think it’s more biblically accurate to say “belief and confession”
You said the above after a grammatical exegesis of Jesus' words. IF you were there on the day Jesus spoke the words, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saves, would you have corrected Jesus?
i’d love to continue this conversation further but we seem to have fallen into the category of Titus 3:9, which states “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because they are unprofitable and useless”. i respect how you stand firm in what you believe to be true and that you have a great pursuit of knowledge but from this point on i don’t see much fruit.
thank you for engaging in this debate with me, i’m glad we could keep it respectful even though we have different stances and i look forward to reading more of your work, once again, please continue in your faithfulness towards the Lord.
no, Titus 3:9 does not apply here. I am only speaking where the Bible speaks. You are espousing the doctrine that claims faith alone or, worse yet, belief saves.
You understand that, baptism aside, belief is a work? So saying that all one has to do is believe and salvation is not of works are contradictory statements as you are using them.
i can assure you that neither of us are going to change our stance; therefore, to continue the conversation further will be unproductive and useless. so again i thank you for the debate, it was very engaging and i pray your faith will remain unwavering.
fair enough, but you disengaged when things got hard for you. It was not a debate. It it was, it was rather one sided. You have an issue with context and overall understanding of Scripture.
You talked yourself into a belief only salvation in opposition to what you perceive to be a works salvation which is absurd as belief itself is a work according to Jesus.
Don't pit verses against each other. That is your biggest issue.
great question, it provides a different perspective so thank you. i wouldn’t have corrected Jesus because He never said that those who aren’t baptized will be condemned and it’s never said in the Bible.
the root of this is a Negative Inference Fallacy which states: “if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are also true” for example the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is a true statement, however, the negation “if a dog does not have brown spots is not an animal” is a false statement, a fallacy.
same with this verse: “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is a true statement, however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” the same fallacy as the first example.
a specific example of condemnation can be found in the second half of that verse in Mark 16:16 “...whoever does not believe will be condemned” notice how it doesn’t say “whoever doesn’t believe and is not baptized will be condemned” what Jesus is doing here is mentioning a condition related to baptism, this relation should not be confused with a requirement
i wouldn’t have corrected Jesus because He never said that those who aren’t baptized will be condemned and it’s never said in the Bible.
But that is what Jesus' words mean. That is the point of His statement.
One who is not baptized for the correct reasons with the understanding of what one is doing can not be saved as they will not be a child of God by faith in Christ having put on Christ.
Your objection here is fallacious and is not often used even by the staunch "faith alone" crowd.
In order to be saved one has to believe and be baptized. In order to be damned one as to believe not. To assert that Jesus had to then say, now those who are not baptized are condemned too, is absurd.
"the root of this is a Negative Inference Fallacy which states: “if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are also true” for example the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is a true statement, however, the negation “if a dog does not have brown spots is not an animal” is a false statement, a fallacy."
This does not apply to Jesus' statement. Jesus sets two conditions for salvation. In order for what you have provided to be relevant you have to make being a dog and having spots the requisite for being an animal. Your statement is doing no such, thus the negative inference fallacy.
Jesus is stating that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. If both of those criteria are not met then one cannot be identified as saved.
Now, you could say, in order to be considered an animal one has to be a dog and have spots. That is not true, but the statement is proposing that in order to be identified as an animal one must be a dog an also have spots. It is not a logical fallacy to infer that the person making the statement considers biological organisms that are not dogs or dogs without spots are a not animals. According to the person making the erroneous statement, in order to be an animal one must be both a dog and spotted.
"a specific example of condemnation can be found in the second half of that verse in Mark 16:16 “...whoever does not believe will be condemned” notice how it doesn’t say “whoever doesn’t believe and is not baptized will be condemned” what Jesus is doing here is mentioning a condition related to baptism, this relation should not be confused with a requirement"
Again, Jesus laid out one clause giving the criteria for salvation and another for damnation. He does not have to redistribute the term, baptism, in the second clause.
see also: hermeneutics, using the Bible to interpret the Bible, this’ll bring clarity when studying one specific verse or passage, i love verse-by-verse breakdowns by the way so keep being faithful to the Lord
well, you did not rebut anything I said in the article. Also, to deny baptism is to deny Jesus. You quoted Paul, I'd offer a couple of passages from Paul:
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Notice how that under the New Covenant that those who are children of God by faith in Christ are those who have put on Christ and those who have put on Christ are those who have been baptized into Christ. Are are asserting that one can be right with God the Father and not be in Christ?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 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.
See here how that those who are in Christ are also buried with Christ and those who are buried with Christ are those who walk in newness of life. You are not asserting that one can be in a right relationship with God the Father without being buried with His Son are you?
I think maybe we need to take the Bible as a whole.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. It is very simple. Belief and baptism are both needed for salvation. Without either salvation is not had.
excellent points made, you show to have great Biblical knowledge, i’d love to point out that i do not deny baptism for i was baptized years ago, i don’t know if that statement was for me or for the people reading the comments, and lastly the main point is my initial question: what about the thief on the cross? the one who was promised salvation without being baptized
The thief on the cross was not under the same covenant as we are today. His instructions on salvation are not the same as ours.
All who are in Hebrews 11, Faiths Hall of Fame, lived and died under a different system of faith.
We are under the New Covenant of Jesus. His instructions are what we must follow.
we both should understand that under the New Covenant we are given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift as seen in Ephesians 2:8-9 “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” this is one of the instructions we must follow under the New Covenant. this instruction explicitly states that no works provide salvation, it is only through faith.
Hebrews 11:1 gives us the definition of faith “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” notice how this verse does not relate to baptism whatsoever, it does however relate to belief as confidence and assurance.
in conclusion, i’d love to retract my initial statement that salvation is through belief and confession, it is strictly done through belief. confession is a relation to belief and more of a command for after salvation (belief). after we are saved by God’s grace and through faith; may then, we shall go and proclaim God’s grace by both word of mouth and baptism
Excellent