The Instigator
badbob
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
happy-bread
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Baptism is essential for salvation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
happy-bread
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,553 times Debate No: 25136
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

badbob

Pro

First round is for acceptance
second round is for arguments and counter
third round is for counter and conclusion
The deabte is geared toward people who already believe in christianity so that is who should accept the debate as well since arguments will be geared toward scripture. Thanks!
happy-bread

Con

I have accepted this debate and to prove that I have done so, I will say "I accept".
Debate Round No. 1
badbob

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.
Baptism is essential for salvation. Let me illustarte.
First, early in the Saviour's ministry, he sought out John the baptist in the river Jordan and was baptized himself. He set the example He wants us to follow. He was without sin yet he obeyed the law of heaven by being baptized. Then He said :
"come follow me", meaning we do what He did.
Second, He is the ultimate authority, He told Nicodemus that "except a man be born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". This is a clear reference to baptism by water and then receiving the Holy Ghost. Unless we are baptized, we cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Third, He said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". He said we had to do both, not just believe alone but coupled with baptism.
I turn the time over to my opponent.

King James version of the bible
John 3:5
Mark16:16
happy-bread

Con

To start, I would like to share my pastor's view of baptism. He likens baptism to a wedding ring. You dont need a wedding ring in order to be married, but it publicly shows that you are married. Similar to baptism, you dont need baptism to achieve salvation, but you publicly confess your faith. Essentially, baptism is a way of symbolically showing that the Holy Spirit has washed away your sin. Baptism doesnt wash away the sin but it represents how your sin has been washed away. Jesus encourages his followers to show their faith through baptism but it's not a necessity for salvation. Romans 10: 9 says "If you declare with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead then you will be saved(NIV)." Nowhere in this verse is baptism mentioned as a requirement for salvation.

As for John 3:5, there is debate about whether or not "water" even refers to baptism [1]. And as for Mark 16:16, my opponent left off the end statement which says "but whoever does not believe will be condemned(NIV)." Nowhere in this second section is baptism mentioned. If the verse said "whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned" then it would be a different story, but it does not.

[1] http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 2
badbob

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments. I wouls accept your pastors arguments except I am working on the authority of the scriptures and it does not say that in there. A lot of people have different views but it has to be supported by what the holy word says.
You discussedJohn3:5. I think it is clear that it is batism because it discusses baptism by water and the holy ghost.Peter during Pentacost put the two together"repent and be baptized for the remmision of sins and receive the holy ghost" Acts 2:38That verse also shows that through the waters of baptism we receive forgiveness because of the atonement of Christ. Later i Acts 22:16 it says "be baptized and wash away thy sins" teaching the same idea.
You also mentioned my scripture Mark16:16. I do not think your logic stands up because you could apply that to the first part of the verse. Why did he not just say :he that bekieveth will be saved". He put in another requirement by saying"he that believeth and is baptized will be saved"
Romans 6:3-6 talks about how we walk in a newness of life after being buried with Christ symbolically by beibg baptized. It is through that ordinance that we gain a newness of life and are able to eneter the kingdom of God that the Savious taghut about in John3:5.
In closing, I think I have shown that it is essential based on authority of the scriptues. Vote Pro. I thank my opponent for debating me!
happy-bread

Con

I would like to begin by addressing that my opponent basically dropped my entire offensive argument by not responding to Matthew 10:9 where it clearly states that you can be saved without being baptized. Seeing that he didnt attack it, this point still stands and should be weighed heavily in the judgment of this debate.
"If you declare with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead then you will be saved(NIV)."

My opponent brings up John 3:5 again in his conclusion but he did not address my evidence saying that "water" could mean anything. For example, from the source that I posted, being born of water probably means being born of a woman's womb. As for Acts 22:16, I will bring up three Bible verses that state that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ not baptism: Hebrews 9:14, Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7. It is possible that in Acts 22:16 being baptized and washing away one's sins could be two separate events. According to the same source that I posted previously [1], Romans 6:3-6 is figurative since it references our deaths, and of course we are not dead yet. And finally, in regard to Acts 2:38, repentance and baptism are often identified as going hand in hand but repentance is the one that actually washes away your sin, not baptism.

Seeing that I have proven that baptism is not required to be saved through my reference of Matthew 10:9, and that I have successfully countered all the verses he referenced, Vote Con.

[1] http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by happy-bread 4 years ago
happy-bread
John 3:5 never says "again" it just says "born of water"
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
Oh yea, people go back into the mothers womb "again" all the time!
Posted by happy-bread 4 years ago
happy-bread
You obviously have no idea what the passage is about. In John 3:6 (the very next verse) Jesus says "flesh gives birth to flesh."
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
Happy bread-- Do you really think John3:5 means going back into your mothers womb. Didn't you read the entire chapter. That is what Nicodemos thought and was corrcted by Jesus! Come on man! be real.
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
ok sounds good!
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
ok sounds good!
Posted by logicalrobot 4 years ago
logicalrobot
I can accept the debate if we wait as long as possible to post. I am busy Fri, but after that I will be fine.
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
Yes i mean water baptism. Thank you
Posted by logicalrobot 4 years ago
logicalrobot
Do you mean water baptism?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
badbobhappy-breadTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a better and more accurate interpretation of John chapter 3. If you look at the context of the rest of the passage it is clearly discussing a human birth, not baptism.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
badbobhappy-breadTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was underwhelming, but in the end, Pro failed to respond to Con's biggest objection in Romans 10:9. So, argument to Con. Also, Pro's spelling and grammar was atrocious.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
badbobhappy-breadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate should have been more than two rounds to properly flesh out this issue, but given what's available I give Con the win as he was able to find scripture supporting the idea of non-baptismal salvation and Pro had failed to counter this evidence.