The Instigator
DAN123
Pro (for)
Tied
16 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Tied
16 Points

Baptism is essential to salvation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 30,531 times Debate No: 16485
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (97)
Votes (6)

 

DAN123

Pro

I hope someone accepts this proposition of mine. And I hope he/she would handle the position of Con nicely. I would like to define some terms about my proposition:
Baptism- InChristianity, baptism(from the Greek noun baptisma; itself derived from baptismos, ritual washing), is performed only by full bodily immersion based on theKoine Greek verb baptizo which is understood to mean to dip, immerse, submerge or plunge.
Essential – 1. Absolutelynecessary;indispensable,
2. Pertaining to or constituting the essence of a thing.
To Salvation- Christianitydeliverance by redemption from the power of sin and from the penalties ensuing from it.
The Bible is very clear in its teaching on baptism's role in our salvation. It is an act of obediencethat is required of us by God "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). The Bible does not teach that baptism is "an outward sign of inward grace." Neither does the Bible teach the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" which says that baptism is the only thing involved in our salvation. There are other conditions of pardon, which are faith, repentance, and confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10;Luke 13:3).
The following statements from the Spiritual Sword Volume 30 theme: Why We Teach:

(1) Acts 2:38 and the Great Commission.
Since Acts 2 is the implement of the Great Commission, the gospel was being preached when Peter exhorted, “be baptized.” Also, since John 16:13 was fulfilled in Acts, we learn that baptism is part of the “all truth.”
(2) Acts 2:38 conjoined with Acts 2:40, 41.
Observing that Peter exhorted, “Save yourselves” (Acts 2:40), which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, “then they gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation. Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation

Let’s begin by looking at each individual passage that relates to baptism and then at all of them together as a whole and let the Bible speak for itself:

►Matthew 3:13-16
Then Jesus came from Galilee to theJordanto John, to be baptized by him.John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
►Ephesians 4:4-5
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
►Romans 6:3-5
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
►I Peter 3:21
This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you also -not the removal of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
►Colossians 2:12
andyou were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
►John 3:1-5
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born anew, he cannot see thekingdomofGod."Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod.
►Acts 8:26-40
And the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Get up, and go toward the south unto the way that goes down fromJerusalemtoGaza, which is desert. And he got up and went: and, behold, a man ofEthiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come toJerusalemto worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Isaiah the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and stay close to this chariot. And Philip ran up to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, How can I, except someone should guide me? And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this,“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.” And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I ask you, of whom is the prophet speaking? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached to him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came to some water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what keeps me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stop: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and Philip baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more: but he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found atAzotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came toCaesarea.
►Galatians 3:26-27
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
►Mark 16:15-16
And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned.
►Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit
►Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.
►Acts 2:38-41
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls
►Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I take it as clear that Pro means the 1st definition of essential he gave, the second seeming rather irrelevant here. I accept Pro's definition of Baptism. Removing the word "Christianity" from the definition of salvation is necessary to grant the definition syntactic coherence even by the presently observed standards of definition whereby - or : are observed as synonyms of is. To is also worthless lingual debris If my opponent objects to the simplified and fixed definition of Salvation as deliverance by redemption from the power of sin and from the penalties ensuing from it; he will have to propose a newly grammatically coherent definition in the next round, which not being stipulated will be under significant burden.

I note that he has the burden of proof for all propositions.

Within the context of the Bible, which my opponent accepts as an authority on the matter:

Baptism is clearly a work.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Ephesians 2:8,9

It is by faith that the Bible declares we are saved. No "Through faith if works," works such as baptism some essential, necessary proposition, but "Through faith... not of works." God's grace is the sole deciding factor, it is necessary and sufficient.

""be baptized."
That there is a command to be baptized does not establish necessity for salvation.

" baptism is part of the "all truth.""
Nothing obviously relevant to the debate follows from this claim. Also, how was that verse fulfilled by the other?

"Peter exhorted, "Save yourselves" (Acts 2:40),"
Peter may exhort whatever impossible things he wishes. Yet the Bible maintains it is not possible to save yourself.

"which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, "then they gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation."
That is a non sequitir.

"Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation"
Peter's counterfactual plan to state that words would save him does not make it so. Commands to baptism do not establish necessity. Christianity assumes you will fail your commands anyway. To follow commands thinking it will save you is to violate Christianity's premise about Man's nature.

""This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.""
Pleasure is not salvation.

"
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
There is only one set of genitalia on my body, this does not establish that it is a necessary condition of salvation, even were I to wave it above you all, and thrust it through you all and in you all.

"
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."
It is already contradicted that our act of accepting baptism can offer salvation, hence, the only noncontradictory interpretation here is that the resurrection we gain a share in is something other than our ultimate salvation.

"
This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you also -not the removal of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"
The symbol of baptism which saves you is not the baptism, not the removal of dirt from the body. Grammatically it is clear. The baptism is the removal of dirt from the body. The symbol is the answer of a good conscience toward God-- faith. This is mildly inconsistent in that faith hardly seems like a good attribute of conscience, and it certainly makes Plato roll over in his grave at his Christian descendants for stating that the shadow on the wall is heavenly and the form the earthly act, but it is less blatantly contradictory than the alternative.

"
andyou were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
"
And I play football in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else.

""I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod."
Since interpreting this as baptism would be contradictory, we are forced to interpret it as anything else. Perhaps God gives the faithful a bath in watery spirits after their death after their first resurrection or two. It sound silly, but the Law of Identity takes precedence over not sounding silly.

"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip"
When, not "only because of"

"
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
This can be read as a contributory or a sufficient condition to faith in Christ-- the latter is problematic if you assume humans have free will over faith-- but it clearly does not establish necessity.

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
Says nothing at all about the case of he who believes but is not baptized, and the fate of that case is the crux of the matter.

"
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit"
According to his mercy-- by washing of his regeneration, not of his ceremony. Even if it did say his ceremony, that just means that's the means he used for those people, and leaves open other means for other faithful.

"Go therefore ...baptizing them"
A mere command, not an establishment of necessary conditions.

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Turn on the oven, and wave a magic wand over it, and the chicken inside will be cooked. The magic wand is of course optional. This statement leaves open-- Peter could be wrong, Baptism could be an accessory much like the magic wand.

""Save yourselves"
Already established as impossible according to Bible.

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
No content not already addressed.

Stepping back into Reality: Pro has the burden of proof. He has not demonstrated the Bible's authority on salvation.

Furthermore, there seems to be a problem in this notion of "Salvation." If you can be delivered from the consequences of sin by redemption, they aren't really the consequences of sin, they are the consequences of sin minus redemption. What are the sins, what are the consequences? Cite not the Bible but Reality if you wish to prevail on this fork of the argument, which is the really important one-- winning the Bible fork is neither necessary nor sufficient, but the Reality fork is both. Since the Resolution does not ask "According to the Bible, Baptism is essential to salvation" but simply "Baptism is essential to salvation", the Bible arguments are mere sideshow unless you can link them to the reality fork. I have addressed them only for completeness.
Debate Round No. 1
DAN123

Pro

My opponent seems to have misinterpreted all of the biblical preference that i have given and he has left some texts unread and he has put Eph. 2: 8-9 an excuse to prove his arguments. Well, first of all read the whole chapter of Ephesians 2 if you have a bible, the ephesians there seeks to be save through the works of the law(jewish law), secondly, read
Titus 3:5- Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit- it talks about works of obedience to be saved apart from works of righteousness, and it also talks we are saved by his mercy through baptism.

Now onto his arguments, he picks out of the context "be baptized" out of what i wholly said. I said "Since Acts 2 is theimplement of the Great Commission, the gospel was being preached when Peter exhorted, “be baptized.” Also, since John 16:13 was fulfilled in Acts, we learn that baptism is part of the “all truth.”.... And the great commision says in Mark 16:16 "And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believes and is baptizedshall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned."

Later, he says- "Peter exhorted, "Save yourselves" (Acts 2:40),"
Peter may exhort whatever impossible things he wishes. Yet the Bible maintains it is not possible to save yourself.
- in here he makes Peter a liar, and worse the Holy Spirit a Liar,(john 16:13) - there are many things in the bible that pertains to salvation:
God's grace (Ephesians 2:4-10; 1:7; Titus 2:11,12; Acts 15:11)
Jesus' death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:6-10; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Revelation 1:5; 1 Corinthians 15:17; 1 Peter 3:21)
The gospel (Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Acts 11:14; James 1:18,21; 1 Corinthians 15:1,2; John 8:31,32)
Learning God's will (Acts 11:14; John 6:44,45; Romans 10:17; 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21)
Faith (see the verses listed above)
Love (1 Corinthians 16:22; 13:1-3; Galatians 5:6; 1 John 4:7,8)
Hope (Romans 8:24)
Repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; Luke 13:3,5; 2 Peter 3:9)
Obedience (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 6:17,18; 1 Peter 1:22; Acts 10:34,35; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9; Galatians 5:6; James 2:14-26)
Confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matthew 10:32)
Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-7; Galatians 3:26,27; Colossians 2:12,13)
Faithfulness (Matthew 10:22; Revelation 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Matthew 28:20; Titus 2:11,12; 1 John 2:1-6)
Church membership (Acts 2:47; 20:28; Ephesians 5:23,25)

Some of these are things God has done; OTHERS WE MUST DO. All are essential to our salvation.

Later in his argument he said that Acts 2:41 is a non sequitur. I would like to define "non sequitur"

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)

Again my oppenent makes a disorder of things; picking context out of the whole context, in order to refute his argument i will again write the
whole context:
(2) Acts 2:38 conjoined with Acts 2:40, 41.
Observing that Peter
exhorted, “Save yourselves” (Acts 2:40), which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, “then they gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation. Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation.

it says save yourselves(Acts 2:40) so, it is understood that we have
to do something (Acts 2:41). another basic (pattern) example is in the following sentence:"Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation."


Later again he says""This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
"Pleasure is not salvation. well it's not you've just again picked out a context out of the whole context

"
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."
It is already contradicted that our act of accepting baptism can offer salvation, hence, the only noncontradictory interpretation here is that the resurrection we gain a share in is something other than our ultimate salvation.

in here he misinterprets Rom. 6:3-5 maybe he missed the word "newness of life".

The symbol of baptism which saves you is not the baptism, not the removal of dirt from the body. Grammatically it is clear. The baptism is the removal of dirt from the body. The symbol is the answer of a good conscience toward God-- faith. This is mildly inconsistent in that faith hardly seems like a good attribute of conscience, and it certainly makes Plato roll over in his grave at his Christian descendants for stating that the shadow on the wall is heavenly and the form the earthly act, but it is less blatantly contradictory than the alternative.

The bible:... baptism which saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body...
My opponent: baptism which does not save you, the removal of dirt from the body

which will you believe?


andyou were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
"
And I play football in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else.

This is another misinterpretation what is "in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else." going to do with Colossians 2:12

I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod."
Since interpreting this as baptism would be contradictory, we are forced to interpret it as anything else. Perhaps God gives the faithful a bath in watery spirits after their death after their first resurrection or two. It sound silly, but the Law of Identity takes precedence over not sounding silly.

my opponent says that "born of water and spirit" will be inappropriate to translate it to baptism later he said we are forced to translate it to baptism, the question is what is a better translation of it?


"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip"
When, not "only because of"


once again this a text taken out of the WHOLE CONTEXT and he gives a lacking definition in it, again i will ask you to read the whole context then you might wanna argue with me, ok

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
This can be read as a contributory or a sufficient condition to faith in Christ-- the latter is problematic if you assume humans have free will over faith-- but it clearly does not establish necessity.

I will continue this in the comment section




Ragnar_Rahl

Con



", the ephesians there seeks to be save through the works of the law"
It doesn't matter what it seeks, it just said it's impossible to be saved by any works. This isn't a debate about what kind of stupid things people sought.


"but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit- it talks about works of obedience to be saved apart from works of righteousness, and it also talks we are saved by his mercy through baptism.
"
Does not help you. Our choices are: Interpret this as a contradiction of Ephesians, meaning the Bible is wrong, or interpret it as merely one means among many through which God happens to respond to the faithful, and thus rendering the washing of regeneration optional.

"
Now onto his arguments, he picks out of the context "be baptized" out of what i wholly said. "
It is your job to demonstrate that to be problematic. I am addressing substantive terms, nothing more, in the interest of space.

"...And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believes and is baptizedshall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
"
already addressed this and "all truth", so clearly I didn't drop the context, I just split it into manageable bits. I addressed every bit. Premise 1, premise 2, irrelevant conclusion. You don't have a "whole" to "wholly say."

"- in here he makes Peter a liar, and worse the Holy Spirit a Liar,(john 16:13"
Make your arguments explicit. I had to look up John 3:16 and it is prima facie irrelevant to the conclusion that I "make the Holy Spirit a liar"


As for making Peter one: It's not me that's doing this, it's another Bible phrase. Sorry. My hands are clean.

Long list of bible citations:

That's not an argument. Give me text. Give me enough information that your argument can stand as a logical structure.


"Later in his argument he said that Acts 2:41 is a non sequitur. I would like to define "non sequitur"
"
False. You could apparently use as much improvement in reading my arguments as you could in reading the Bible.

I said that THIS is a non sequitir:


"which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, "then they gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation."
They gladly received his word (Premise from Acts)
They were baptized (Premise from Acts)
Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Your conclusion, to which the premises have no bearing)

That is a non sequitir. That is the argument you were making, logically speaking.

" exhorted, “Save yourselves” (Acts 2:40), which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, “then they gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41),"
Oh, so your argument is
"Peter said 'Save yourselves'" ( Premise from from Acts. Notably, you have not reconciled Ephesians with this premise)
"They gladly received his word and were baptized." (Premise from Acts)
We learn that baptism is necessary for salvation. (Conclusion of yours to which the premises are irrelevant.)

"
Again my oppenent makes a disorder of things"
As we see above, I take the core of what you make. It is already a goddamn disorder. I am not your Creator, I can't help you be orderly.

"whole context"
Which gave you nothing of value.

I addressed the rest of the context previously. To summarize "Peter commanded X of Cornelius, Peter said X would gain him salvation" does not even remotely establish "X is necessary to salvation." Commands, sufficiency, necessity, one doesn't help you establish the other, nor does Peter saying something make it true. And since we have the additional premise from Ephesians (X is impossible), we know that A. Peter here was lying, unless the narrator of Ephesians was, and B, X cannot be necessary for salvation unless salvation too is impossible.

"
it says save yourselves(Acts 2:40) so, it is understood that we have to do something (Acts 2:41)."
Bible says previously that you can't save yourselves. Statements that something is impossible have priority to statements commanding that thing. Strictly speaking, Peter doesn't even have to lie for this one, he just has to command someone to attempt the impossible. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing useful to your case.

"
"Pleasure is not salvation. well it's not you've just again picked out a context out of the whole context
"
That's not an argument. It doesn't ***ing matter unless you have an ARGUMENT with premises in the rest of the context.

"
in here he misinterprets Rom. 6:3-5 maybe he missed the word "newness of life""
Does not follow. Newness of life does not contradict presalvation resurrection, or other possible interpretations. Since your interpretation, however, does lead us to a contradiction you have not rebutted, you must either A. reconcile it, B. believe your interpretation is wrong, C. believe the whole thing is wrong, abandon Christianity. Otherwise, you will default to D, Intellectual Dishonesty. The choice of what to attempt is yours

"
The bible:... baptism which saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body...
My opponent: baptism which does not save you, the removal of dirt from the body

which will you believe?
"

This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you also -not the removal of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Bible: "SYMBOL OF BAPTISM" WHICH SAVES you, NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT FROM THE BODY
ME: SYMBOL OF BAPTISM which saves you, NOT Baptism itself (=not the removal of dirt from the body-- baptism is the removal of dirt from the body)
You-- misread both.
Where is your argument that "Symbol of Baptism" is the same thing as "Baptism?"
Where is your argument that "Baptism" is "Not the removal of dirt from the body?" Where does "Baptism," the entity, appear as a subject or object? Nowhere, it's merely brought up as something related to the symbol. The symbol is what this passage says saves you, not the baptism. It's fairly simple really. Just think carefully about which words refer to which other words.

"
This is another misinterpretation"
That is not an argument. That is a waste of text. Stop saying that crap and get to arguing.

"
I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod.""
A. That is irrelevant to whether my previous statement is a misinterpretation it's a totally differe

" going to do with Colossians 2:12"
That's random crap mixed with my quote. If you can't address it with an argument, don't quote it, move on, argue somewhere else. Don't just mix a random phrase in that makes no syntactical sense.

"
my opponent says that "born of water and spirit" will be inappropriate to translate it to baptism later he said we are forced to translate it to baptism,"
Where did I say that? You didn't quote where I said that. Remember, anything else means anything else, not that thing. Anything other than baptism means NOT BAPTISM, it does not mean BAPTISM.
Also, I didn't say anything about translation. I said interpretation. We're arguing about what a poetic metaphor means in English, not about what some Aramaic word means in English-- neither of us know what the Aramaic words even are. I'm sure we could look it up but for us to argue about them would be an ad authoritatem fallacy inevitably.

"once again..."
Once again I ask you to respond with argument, not "THAT's a misinterpretation," "Context, NYAHHH." Explain the relevance of the context.

"
the answer: yes it does"
You're not here to give answers unless I ask you a goddamn question. You are here to argue.

"...HAVE PUT ON CHRIST"
This in its context doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Debate Round No. 2
DAN123

Pro

it looks like our debate turned into a "finding a text error".... ha ha, but i will try to change the harmony of he debate, i will post my argument, i I'll have the burden of proof, for if i continue to look for an error on Con's arguments it wouldn't fit on the 8000 character limit. ok

To strengthen the authority principle of my position I will add some study about baptism

just i said earlier baptism is for the remission of sins which my opponent ignores every time
And in Acts 2:38 it states "repent, and be baptized in the he name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
and therefore necessary for salvation, and this baptism in the acts 2:38 is the implement o the great commission,
And the great commission says in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, get the point

baptism is divine imperative

(1) in the case of Saul. Saul of Tarsus was to go in Damascus where he would be told what he must do" (Acts 9:6); not, "can" do, “may" do, but "must" do! Ananias comes to him in the city and says, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord" ( Acts 22:16) Thus Baptism is a "must".

(2) A corollary. John 3:7 is a corollary passage. This text state, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye "must" be born again."

(3) Other "musts". Faith is a "must" (Heb. 11:6); and scriptural worship is a "must" (John 4:24). Can a person be saved without baptism when it is equally a divine imperative? "Must" is the strongest word in the English language; and it modifies baptism. Thus, why try weaken its necessity?

My opponent misinterpreted what i said in the comments section, an I would like to answer that- ragnal ral I think you don't read with understanding it, I said it's a "must" therefore what? Therefore it is necessary to salvation.

back to the study,

Baptism is a command

(1) Acts 10:47-48. This passage reads. "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Yes, baptism is a command not a mere suggestion or good idea or optional choice. And, be it observed that the word "non-essential" does not modify it. In fact the word "non - essential" does not even appear in the bible.
(2) Other commands. The same Lord that made faith a command (Acts 16:31; I John 3: 23) and repentance a command (Acts 17:30; 3:19; 2:38), made baptism a command. Who has the authority to say two of these are important and one is non – essential.

i hope also that con would also prove his position, and would not rely of what i'm saying although it is my job, but it wouldn't be a debate if i would only prove my argument, but also the opposing side

Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"just i said earlier baptism is for the remission of sins which my opponent ignores every time
And in Acts 2:38 it states "repent, and be baptized in the he name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS
and therefore necessary for salvation, and this baptism in the acts 2:38 is the implement o the great commission,"
Again, that does not follow. Incidentally you are misusing quotation marks here. The imperative "Be baptized... For the Remission of Sins" does not establish "Baptism is necessary for salvation." In fact, since it's imperative, it couldn't even establish a conclusion similar to the premises-- commands are inherently not factual statements.

"
And the great commission says in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall besaved, get the point"
I already addressed this. However, there is no point to get.

"
baptism is divine imperative"
Wholly irrelevant to whether it is a necessity for salvation, especially in a religion which assumes it is impossible to avoid violation of divine imperatives.

Incidentally, it's Peter's imperative based on what you were citing before it. I didn't know Peter was considered by you to be divine. Is he also golden and bovine?


"...Thus Baptism is a "must". Not only does it not follow that because Saul of Tarsus was told by someone that he must do something he therefore must (ad authoritatem fallacy), even if we assume that proves Baptism being a must it still doesn't tell us what it's a must for. Salvation? Certainly not demonstrated/

"(2) A corollary. John 3:7 is a corollary passage. This text state, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye "must" be born again.""
This is still completely irrelevant to our debate.

Basically, you're just repeating crap I've already addressed with pretty bolding.

" Other "musts". Faith is a "must" (Heb. 11:6); and scriptural worship is a "must" (John 4:24). Can a person be saved without baptism when it is equally a divine imperative?"
My toothbrush is a sticklike object, and a toothpick is a sticklike object. Is a club a tooth cleaning instrument merely because it is a sticklike object? No, that's completely irrelevant. "Divine imperative" and "Necessity for salvation" are two distinct phenomena. You have to create a link between them if you want the former to be relevant, and you haven't done that.

:I said it's a "must" therefore what? Therefore it is necessary to salvation.
Must->What? ->Necessary to salvation.

I'll note that there are no relations between these terms. If your logic here is accurate, then my sister is therefore a tree and therefore a Martian. Since this is not the case, the rule "Putting up three random propositional terms and sticking a therefore between each adjacent pair proves the last of them" is false and your argument is therefore invalid.

"Yes, baptism is a command not a mere suggestion or good idea or optional choice."
Irrelevant. Paying my taxes is not a mere suggestion or good idea or optional choice, it does not follow that a necessary condition of my not being personally raped by reptilians is prompt payment of taxes. Likewise, even if baptism is not optional, even if it is somehow mandatory, it does not follow that it is a necessary condition of salvation.

"And, be it observed that the word "non-essential" does not modify it."
Be it observed that the word "Essential to salvation" does not either. Since you are making the positive claim, that means you lose.

"
(2) Other commands. The same Lord that made faith a command (Acts 16:31; I John 3: 23) and repentance a command (Acts 17:30; 3:19; 2:38), made baptism a command. Who has the authority to say two of these are important and one is non – essential. "
There is no need. All three can be important, divinely commanded, etc. , without their importance being a cause of action for "essentiality to salvation." Especially in the context of a religion where EVERYONE IS ASSUMED TO BREAK THE RULES ANYWAY.

"

i hope also that con would also prove his position, and would not rely of what i'm saying although it is my job, but it wouldn't be a debate if i would only prove my argument, but also the opposing side

"
It remains a debate. That is simply how debates work, the affirmative claim has the tough job.
Debate Round No. 3
DAN123

Pro

Again to be more clearer, to be more clearer i want you to read the whole chapter of Acts 2 because it proves that baptism saves and baptism is essential to salvation- Acts 2:38-42”

And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
Act 2:40 and with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, save yourselves from this crooked generation.
Act 2:41 they then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.

my opponent won't recognize these passages and just go on misquoting bible passages

He quotes on Acts 2:40
" ""Save yourselves"
Already established as impossible according to Bible.

my opponent doesn't realize the truth which the bible says

How can you say it is already established as impossible according to the bible, when the bible states so, actually the waters of baptism doesn't save us but God saves us through that way because in Romans 6:3-5
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

because we are dead in sin buried through baptism and raised in the newness of life.

And in mark 16:16 "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved" it only shows a pattern of how should we be saved and my opponent doesn't recognize that passage as stated

note the order (1) believe; (2) baptized; (3) saved, in this verse baptism is made a condition of salvation, as plainly as faith

my opponent stated falsely again:

"Thus Baptism is a "must". Not only does it not follow that because Saul of Tarsus was told by someone that he must do something he therefore must (ad authoritatem fallacy), even if we assume that proves Baptism being a must it still doesn't tell us what it's a must for. Salvation? Certainly not demonstrated/"

- he didn't even acknowledge that the following verses states that Saul of Tarsus was saved through baptism.(Acts 22:16)

and my opponent doesn't acknowledge that having remission of sins is the power of salvation(the power of Christ) from sin

and con even doesn't realize what I meant about "must", my friend I will ask you what is the topic of our debate? Isn't the debate baptism is essential to salvation? So when I said must, I also meant what Saul of Tarsus "must" do to be saved, is it by faith only? or by an obedient faith obeying the command to be saved through baptism.

Additional Purposes of Water Baptism

Baptism is necessary to (a) salvation (Mark 16:16; I Pet. 3:21), (b) entering into a sacred relationship with the Godhead (Matt. 28:18-20), (c) experiencing the new birth (John 3:1-7), (d) coming in to contact with the blood of Christ (Rom. 6:3; John 19:34), entering Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:26-27), (g) becoming a Christian (I Cor. 1:12, 13), (h) entering the body, the church (I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22, 23), and (i) forgiveness (Col. 2:11, 12).

Summation, observation and Dedication

(1) The purpose of baptism is to be saved.

This may be stated in various ways- baptism saves (I Pet. 3:21), baptism is to wash away sin (Acts 22:16), etc. - such is but different ways to express the same thing. What is it? Baptism saves!

(2) Accordingly, in the Bible, baptism was considered an urgent matter. A person never ate, drank or slept until he had been baptized upon learning of his need to obey (Acts 16:30-34; 9:18-19). Oh! The urgency! But, why the urgency? Because of baptism’s necessity; and, with no lease on life or a promise of tomorrow, they thus immediately obeyed. The soul is too precious to react otherwise (Matt. 16:24). Indeed, baptism is no trifle. It is of supreme importance.

Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"i want you to read the whole chapter "
THAT ISNT HOW ARGUMENT IS DONE.

Never, ever, ever talk about how you "want us to read" something in a debate. It's YOUR job to make your arguments, not ours.

"because it proves"
YOU have to prove, and explain the proof.

I already addressed your "And peter" argument. I already addressed your "acts" argument. You have added nothing to them, you have not addressed my criticisms, you just make stuff up about supposed misquoting. It isn't even apparent that you know what the word misquoting means.

"
my opponent doesn't realize the truth which the bible says"
Appeal to intimidation.

"
How can you say it is already established as impossible according to the bible, when the bible states so"
Stupid question, it is because the bible says so that I say that according to the bible it is established. I already told you how I could say that in the first round, see:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
http://www.biblegateway.com...


"- he didn't even acknowledge that the following verses states that Saul of Tarsus was saved through baptism.(Acts 22:16) "

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Get up. and be baptized. And wash your sins away. AND. Not THEREFORE. AND. it also says nothing about "saved"

"
and con even doesn't realize what I meant about "must", my friend I will ask you what is the topic of our debate? Isn't the debate baptism is essential to salvation? So when I said must, I also meant what Saul of Tarsus "must" do to be saved"
AND PRO DOESNT EVEN REALIZE THAT "MUST DO" AND "MUST DO TO BE SAVED" are DIFFERENT PHRASES. AND THE BIBLE QUOTES HE USES ONLY HAVE THE FIRST ONE.

"
Baptism is necessary to (a) salvation (Mark 16:16; I Pet. 3:21)"
Mark 16:16 doesn't say that, nor imply it, any apparent implications were already addressed and you complete ignored that address.

This is already addressed. ARGUE, DONT JUST REPEAT YOURSELF. RESPOND TO MY RESPONSES.

the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant.

"The purpose of baptism is to be saved."
The purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. That doesn't render the car "Essential," a "necessary condition." And some cars don't even work.

"(2) Accordingly, in the Bible, baptism was considered an urgent matter. "
Assuming you were to demonstrate this which you did not clearly do: Food is an urgent matter, that doesn't mean it's a necessary condition to any random X. Likewise, baptismal urgency does not establish necessity for salvation.

"A person never ate, drank or slept until he had been baptized upon learning of his need to obey (Acts 16:30-34; 9:18-19). Oh! The urgency! But, why the urgency? Because of baptism’s necessity"
Notably, you had something to quote for the first sentence. But when you got to the because, you didn't-- why?Because you made that part up yourself.

Also notably, you have refused to debate the actual resolution despite the fact that you are the one who wrote the resolution. This debate is not about whether the Bible says that baptism is essential to salvation. This is about whether baptism is ACTUALLY essential to salvation, in the real world, to be discovered by means other than faith/ ad authoritatem. As Pro has refused to raise any argument pertaining to the resolution, and even were the resolution different his arguments did not demonstrate what they pertained to, and he has the burden of proof-- well, I think you can finish this with the consequence, reader. ^_^
Debate Round No. 4
97 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DAN123 6 years ago
DAN123
once again your question was a hypothetical one, and i didn't said that God will be merciful to those who seeks his salvation WITHOUT BAPTISM!!!!

oh and sorry reformed if i can't vote on your debate because my country isn't listed, hence i can't put my phone carrier
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
baptism is not saving faith, and saving faith is not baptism. Are the two connected? Yes, are the identical... not.

So, if God will be merciful to the man on the island, with out baptism... then baptism is not necessary in every situation.
Posted by DAN123 6 years ago
DAN123
contradiction, have you ever read the debate: a person becomes a christian at the point of baptism, i'm on the pro side
Posted by DAN123 6 years ago
DAN123
reformed arsenal : It is a matter of which comes first, saving faith or obedience... saving faith or baptism...

- reformed, saving faith is baptism because saving faith is what obedience is, you are trying to separate those two!!
Posted by DAN123 6 years ago
DAN123
reformdarsenal: Question: A plane crashes on a desert island, the only survivor finds a Bible amidst the debris. They come to a saving faith that trusts in Jesus alone for their salvation. For the remainder of their days they live in full obedience and repentance. However, because they are alone they are unable to be baptized... do they go to hell? Ahijah's argument (along with Dan's and it looks like yours) is that they do. But I'd like to hear it out of your own mouth.

- reformed arsenal this a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, i think both of us agree that God will be merciful enough to those who seek to his salvation
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
I live in a non-Christian household, so I was never able to formally attend church and be baptized.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Contradiction, can I ask you why you are not baptized?
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Way to completely dodge my question. Once again, if you hold that we should not trust any form of hermeneutic at all, then by what basis you can trust your own? Your proposition is *self-refuting.* There is no wiggle room here.

Feel free to challenge me to a "Faith only" debate next week. I am a Christian who has not been baptized, but I am convinced through scripture that I will not go to hell because of that.
Posted by HappyMan 6 years ago
HappyMan
Hi Reform, you said, Question: A plane crashes on a desert island, the only survivor finds a Bible amidst the debris. They come to a saving faith that trusts in Jesus alone for their salvation. For the remainder of their days they live in full obedience and repentance. However, because they are alone they are unable to be baptized... do they go to hell? Ahijah's argument (along with Dan's and it looks like yours) is that they do. But I'd like to hear it out of your own mouth.

I am pleased to answer your question. But first I would need to know. What would have happened to these same people, or man. If they had died in the plane crash before they had faith in God's Son? Before they read the Bible? When you answer this question honestly. You will have the same answer as mine. They are lost for eternity in hell. They did not have to opportunity to hear about the Blessed Jesus Christ. And for this reason alone they will be doomed.

So you and I are very blessed to have learned the first step in God's redemption plan for man. Many people around the world have not had the same blessings as you and I have had. They have not heard the message of Jesus Christ. Sorry to say, unless are are universalist. These people are lost to an eternity in hell. And the ones that have heard and refuse to obey will be just as lost as if they had never heard the gospel. In fact they may have a hotter seat in hell than the people that never had a chance to hear about Jesus.

John, Jesus said,
12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

Jesus said, the words He spoke will judge people in the judgement. It does not matter if a person never hears His word. Or the person who does hear and refuses to obey. The command is to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. We are the lucky ones who God has chosen to hear this message from His Son. We should not neglect so great a salvation.
Thanks ReformA
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
HappyMan,

No where did I say that baptism is not a command. A salvific faith will lead someone to all those things that you mentioned (Love, obedience, growing knowledge of Christ, etc). However none of those things are salvific.

If someone REFUSES to be baptized, it is a good indicator that they are unsaved. Not because they are not baptized, rather because they are demonstrating that their faith is incomplete and false. It is the factual acknowledgement that James talks about that the demons demonstrate, and that you're talking about when ou say "A person can believe all his life Jesus is the Son of God". This is not a saving faith, it is merely an intellectual belief.

It is a matter of which comes first, saving faith or obedience... saving faith or baptism...

In Scripture (and all your archetypes in the Old Testament)... faith that saves comes FIRST. Dead Sea... faith came first, Flood/Ark... faith came first, Jordan river... faith came first.

I am not arguing that a faith that does not move one to obedience, baptism, true Christian love, growing in knowledge of Christ, etc... is salvific. I am merely arguing that those things are not what saves us (or prevents us from being saved). Not exhibiting those things probably means we are not saved... but not because we have not committed those works... but because we do not have the correct kind of faith to save us.

Question: A plane crashes on a desert island, the only survivor finds a Bible amidst the debris. They come to a saving faith that trusts in Jesus alone for their salvation. For the remainder of their days they live in full obedience and repentance. However, because they are alone they are unable to be baptized... do they go to hell? Ahijah's argument (along with Dan's and it looks like yours) is that they do. But I'd like to hear it out of your own mouth.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The necessity of baptism is illumined by Jesus Christ as he stated unless someone is born of water and the spirit they will not enter the kingdom of heaven and the Early Church Fathers. Ragnar failed to appropriately treat the Greek of the text and response to Dan123.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering Ahijah's obvious votebomb
Vote Placed by Ahijah 6 years ago
Ahijah
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted the way I did because pro used the only resource that has the answers to man's final destination. Dan, there are few men with the courage to stand up for God's truth. Most people are looking for the easy way out. The way to destruction is broad. And many there will be that go that way. If you watch the voting results you will see this is another Bible truth. Keep up the Good work. Defend the Truth.
Vote Placed by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
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: Pro's case was never established once challenged. Sources tied since it was a verse spam debate.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
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: Pro never connected divine imperative/urgency/etc to salvation, his verse spam only got him as far as divine imperative, so Con wins. I almost voted Con on sources because I really hate verse spam that takes the place of argumentation, but decided to leave it a tie this time.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
DAN123Ragnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Not necessarily the route I would have gone, but it was a solid Con. Con demanded that Pro provide irrefutable logic for his claims, which Pro did not do. Pro appeared to believe that simply reasserting things made them more powerful in the debate, which it does not. However, Pro supplied voluminous scriptural references which gives him the source vote.