Baptism is essential to salvation
| Started: | 5/16/2011 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 23,379 times | Debate No: | 16485 |
 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.  Con 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. |
 |
|
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
Some of these are things God has done; OTHERS WE MUST DO. All are essential to our salvation.
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. |
 |
|
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 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. |
 |
|
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. my opponent won't recognize these passages and just go on misquoting bible passages
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.
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. ^_^ |
 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| DAN123 | Ragnar_Rahl | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 3 |
"
I should note this is intended to refer to the notion as used-- remission as deletion from history. Remission as mere forgiveness is not inherently incoherent, but it doesn't serve as the tool he wants it to.
Fixing to not Pro.
"Con, Dan has showed in his argument baptism is 1) a command. 2) is for remission of sins 3) washes sins away. Therefore baptism is essential to salvation"
Does not follow. Neither essential nor salvation appears in any of the three premises you claim to be demonstrated.
Of course, the notion of "Remission of sins" is incoherent.
"Unless you contend someone can get to heaven with their past sins and disobey a direct command from God.
"
I don't claim that anyone can get to heaven.
However, Christianity claims that everyone sins, everyone disobeys commands from God, hence, if it's possible to get to heaven, it must be possible under those conditions.
"Besides what I just said, your arguments are incoherent.
"
That's not a coherent argument.
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
That's not compatible with what the word justice means.
So both Paul and John seem to have forgotten a step... it's a good thing we have Ahijah to correct the Apostle to the Gentiles and the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved...