Baptism is not necessary for salvation
Debate Rounds (4)
I am taking the Con position, that is, the position that Jesus explicitly commands us to be baptized in order to receive salvation. My opponent will take the Pro position and must attempt to prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
FORMAT- please read carefully!
My opponent will present an opening argument in the first round. I'll begin my response in the second round.
4TH ROUND- to keep it fair, Pro will not present any new arguments in the 4th round. This ensures that both of us will have three chances to post an argument. Pro may make a brief closing statement if he wishes.
The rules for the debate are pretty simple-
1. As always, both debaters are expected to treat each other with the respect that Christ would have us display. No personal attacks or profanity.
2. Please accept ONLY if you define yourself as a Christian who accepts the belief that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. Don't accept just to troll or play devil's advocate. I also ask that you only accept if you plan to stick around for the entirety of the debate.
3. Votes and comments are encouraged, but I respectfully ask that no hateful or belittling remarks be made against any person or group of people, religious or not. Such remarks are uncalled for and do not prove anything.
A big thank you in advance to whoever accepts this debate!
One question can you use your testimony as an argument like the one you used when getting baptized
Regarding your question, yes you can use your testimony as an argument, or better to say you can use it IN your argument.
The floor is yours, Pro. Why is baptism not necessary for salvation?
It seems that Pro has started with the usual argument: "it doesn't mention it here, so it's not necessary."
Specifically he cites John 3:16 which we all know: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Pro implies that since the passage does not mention baptism as a requirement to have eternal life, it must be unnecessary.
Let's follow Pro's logic here. The passage does not include baptism, so this must mean that it is unnecessary to gain eternal life. NEITHER does the passage mention repentance. Or living faithfully, or even "accepting Jesus into your heart" as the usual saying goes. Therefore, we must conclude that repenting of your sins, accepting Jesus into your heart, and living faithfully are not necessary for salvation either. So all we have to do is believe that God exists, and we are free to live any lifestyle we choose, without repenting or living morally, or even accepting Christ as our savior? It becomes clear, then, that the all-too-common "arguments from omission" fall apart pretty easily.
Rich man and Lazarus
Pro states that he does not believe that Lazarus, the beggar in Jesus' parable in Luke 16:19-31, was baptized on the grounds that he was a poor man. I fail to see how the poverty of Lazarus indicates that he was not baptized. The passage clearly indicates that Lazarus went to heaven when he died. How is this possible if he did not HEAR the message and respond to it? The rich man even begged Abraham to let Lazarus warn his household that they will end up in hell if they do not repent. If he had the means to have the message of Christ preached to him, what prevented him from being baptized? Remember in Matthew 3 that John the Baptist was baptizing people from Jerusalem and all over Judea. Are we to believe that ONLY the rich people were baptized? Many of the disciples themselves were no doubt from less fortunate backgrounds, and we see in John 4:2 that they were the ones who were baptizing. This is solid evidence that there was evangelism among the poor. Also don't forget the Apostles themselves, many of whom came from humble livelihoods such as fishermen. Of course, the rich man and Lazarus come from a parable, which is sort of a hypothetical situation, but they are nevertheless instructive.
I now turn the discussion back over to Pro.
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"
40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!"
43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
This tells us that this criminal rebuked the other by saying "don't you fear God" and he said that he wasn't going to Heaven but Jesus said to him that he was saved right there
There are a few points to be made about the claim that the thief on the cross indicates that baptism is not necessary.
1. Remember that the baptism of Christ was not established until after His death, in Mark 16:16. Thus, the thief could not have been baptized into Christ. Jesus had not yet died, been buried or raised. Before He gave the command, it was through the baptism of John the Baptist that people were baptized. Of course, they were later baptized again, this time into Christ (Acts 19:1-5 is an excellent example).
2. JESUS PHYSICALLY TOLD THE THIEF that he would be saved, because only He has that authority.
3. It seems quite distressing to me that the thief on the cross would be used as an example for salvation in the first place. Here's a guy who has no indication of prior baptism and is sentenced to death for his crimes, and only when he is on the brink of death does he receive salvation- from JESUS IN THE FLESH. Sounds like he was in the "right place" at the "right time," does it not? Is the thief on the cross seriously upheld as a model for salvation? A sinful man who was not baptized, and then is only saved by Christ Himself? It is an upsetting thought, that so many Christians would use this story to justify their claims that baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
Thanks a bunch to Pro for accepting this debate. I certainly hope that anybody following the debate will be inspired to search this topic further, and that God's truth will be revealed.
thesupporter forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the last round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.