The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

the Script. teach water baptism is to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,359 times Debate No: 17452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Proposition: The Scriptures teach that water baptism to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins.

Definition of Terms:
a. The Scriptures- the Word of God
b. Teach- conveys the idea so as to make it necessary.
c. Water Baptism- immersion in water by the authority of Jesus into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
d. Penitent -believer who has repented of past sins
e. Essential- necessary
f. Salvation- pardon, the forgiveness of sins.
g. Alien Sins- sins committed while an alien sinner, before obeying the Gospel of Christ.

Clarifying the Issue:
A. I am not affirming:
1. That there is any saving power in the water. In the case of Naaman, he was cleansed by dipping in the Jordan (II Kings 5:14). The power was not in the water, but in his obedience to God. So it is with baptism.
2. That we are saved by baptism only. The proposition mentions "penitent believer." Baptism must be accompanied by faith and repentance.
3. That we are saved by the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).
4. That we are saved by man's own righteousness (Tit. 3:5).

B. I am affirming:
1. that we are saved by the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3).
Baptism is part of God's righteousness. It is a work of God.
2. That we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) I will readily accept passages to that effect.

Justified by Faith- When?

A. The issue is not: Is an alien sinner justified by faith? We agree that he is!
B. The issue is: WHEN is he justified by faith-before it acts, or when exerted in obedience?
C. I shall contend: An alien sinner is justified by faith when it exercises itself in obedience.

To Illustrate: Heb. 11:30, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, AFTER they were compassed about seven days."
A. No bible believer doubts the walls of Jericho fell down by faith. The word of God plainly says that they did.
B. The question is: WHEN did the walls fall down by faith? The Scriptures plainly declare: "AFTER they were compassed about seven day."
C. That is exactly the kind of faith I am contending for- an obedient faith.
D. Faith was living when they began to march, but the blessing was not received until they completed their obedience.

Justified by Faith- WHEN?

If man is saved by faith before it acts:
1. He is saved without confessing Christ (Jn. 12:42)
2. He is saved before becoming a child of God (Jn 1:12)
3. He is saved before turning to God (Acts 11:21)
4. He is saved with the devils (James 2:19)
5. He is saved as a child of the devil (Jn 8:30-44)

The sinner is saved by a faith which acts :
1. When Paul was justified by faith, he had peace with God (Rom. 5:1).
2. Not on the Damascus road (Acts 9:6)
3. Not immediately in the city (Acts 9:9)
4. But when he obeyed! (Acts 9:18-19; 22:16).

The truth is that the sinner is saved by a faith which acts. When Paul was justified by faith, he had peace with God (Rom. 5:1). But he did not have peace on the Damascus road when he was told to go into the city where it would be told him what he must do (Acts 9:6). He did not find peace immediately in the city when he would not eat or drink (Acts 9:9). He had peace with God when he obeyed the command to arise, be baptized, and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). Only after he was obedient in baptism did he arise, take food. and was strengthened (Acts 9:18-19). That is when he had peace with God; therefore, that is when he was justified by faith! Man is not justified by faith alone (Jas. 2:24-26).

Passages on Faith:
My friend will undoubtly introduce numerous passages showing that faith is a condition of salvation.

A. Lk. 7:50- "thy faith has saved thee."
B. Jn 3:18-"He that believeth on him is not condemned."
C. John 3:36-"He that believed on the Son hath everlasting life."

These I accept without hesitation, but they do not refute my proposition. Tell us what kind of believers are under consideration! Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?

The Divine Order:

I contend that salvation comes after baptism; my opponent says salvation comes before baptism. Which does the Holy Spirit place first?

a. Mark 16:16-(1) Belief, (2) Baptism, (3) Salvation.
b. Acts 2:38-(1) Repent, (2) Baptized, (3) Remission of sins.
c. Acts 22:16-(1) Arise, (2) Baptized, (3) Wash away sins.
d. Galatians 3:27-(1) Baptized, (2) Into Christ.
e. I Pet. 3:21-(1) Baptism, (2) Saves.
If my opponent is correct that salvation comes before baptism, is it not strange that the Holy Spirit never one time had these in the right order?

For Remission of Sins-Acts 2:38
A. Baptism is for the remission of sins. "What shall we do?"(v.37).
B. "Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins."
The language of Peter proves the proposition I am affirming!

ASV-"unto the remission of sins."
Godspeed-"in order to have your sins forgiven."
American Bible Union-"unto remission of sins."
Thayer-"to obtain the forgiveness of sins."
This is Peter's language in Acts 2:38.

Mark 16:16
This verse is important simply because Jesus said it. The "divine order" has already pointed out: (1) Belief, (2) Baptism, (3) Salvation.
THE CATHOLIC: "He that is baptized shall be saved, and he can believe later."
MY OPPONENT:"He that believeth shall be saved, and he can be baptized later (if he wants to.)."
JESUS CHRIST:"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
I plead simply that we accept what Jesus said. Let Phantom tell us: Who is the "he" in Mark 16:16 that "shall be saved"?

I Pet. 3:21
A. Baptism saves us (I Pet. 3:21).Our salvation is compared to Noah’s deliverance as he was carried over from the old sinful world to the new world, cleansed and purified.

B.How was Noah saved?

1. By grace (Gen. 6:8).
2. By faith (Heb. 11:7).
3. By obedience (Heb. 11:7).
4. In the ark (I Pet. 3:20).
5. By water (I Pet. 3:20).

C.How are we saved?

1. By grace (Eph. 2:8).
2. By faith (Rom. 5:1).
3. By obedience (Heb. 5: 8-9).
4. In Christ (II Tim. 2:10).
5. Baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27).

So, the "like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us" (I Pet. 3:21). Any explanation of the passage that denies this is not an explanation at all; it is a contradiction! Reformedarsenal, tell us which of the following is true. Let him put a "strikethrough" the one which he says is not true.


God Bless us all.



I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. This is an important question that has been contentious on this site and among Christians for generations.

Opening Considerations
Prior to the onset of my argument I would like to make a disclaimer of sorts. Good God fearing Christians throughout the generations have made solid exegetical arguments that are grounded in Scripture and have come to very different conclusions. I would like to point out that I do not believe this to be an issue worth dividing the Bride of Christ over, and therefore will not do so. I would encourage my opponent to recognize this, as historically on this site he and others in this theological "camp" have engaged in questioning the salvation and compentency of those who raise counter arguments.

Summary of Argument Structure
My argument will take the following basic structure:
First I shall affirm the commonalities of our perspectives, as to exclude them from future debate. This shall include some clarifications in term
Second, I shall summarize the point of contention in order to focus our debate
Third, I shall respond to my opponent's argument
Note: My first round shall be primarily a positive argumen, I will save detailed rebuttals for my 2nd round.

Common Ground
I would like to affirm the common ground that we stand on. My opponent affirms that we are saved by grace, through faith. He also asserts that there is no salvific power inherant in the act of baptism. However, this is where our commonalities (in this discussion) end. In addition to recognizing these shared stances, I would like to clarify some terms.

A) The Scriptures - My opponent simply defines this as "the Word of God." I would like to clarify that this is the "written word of God contained in the 66 books of the Protestant Canon." I anticipate no objection by my opponent.
B) Teach - I have no objection
C) Water Baptism - My opponent defines this specifically as immersion. However, I do not find this to be an accurate description historically. The Biblical evidence is sparse and no where in the Bible is it affirmatively taught that baptism MUST be by immersion. We have significant descrptive evidence of people being baptised in this way, but there are also ambiguous instances where the method of baptism is not defined. Because this debate is about the purpose of baptism and not the method of baptism, I suggest that we simply refer to baptism and not specify the type of baptism.
D) Penitent - I have no objection to this definton, but perhaps my opponent should clarify. There is an inherant contradiction in my opponent's argument in that my opponent's argument claims that a person cannot be saved simply by being penitent, however the label "believer" is typically reserved for those who are saved.
E) No objection
F) No objection
G) No objection, although further clarification on what "obeying the Gospel of Christ" means will certianly become a part of the debate. At this point I am not maknig a statement of what that aspect of the definition means.

What is the Contentious Point?
While there are some things that we agree on, there is a primary point of disagreement between my opponent and me. To phrase the disagreement specifically

Is baptism a contingent requirement of salvation?

- or -

Is baptism a resultative requirement of salvation?

My opponent argues for the former. Allow me to explain.

When something is a contingent requirement, it means that the latter cannot occur without the former. In a sentence describing this relationship, we would use the word "must," thus my opponent would argue that "To be saved you MUST be baptised"

However, a resultative requirement is different. In a sentence describing we would use the word "will," thus I would argue "If you are saved you will be baptised."

So you see, the disagreemen is the nature of the relationship between baptism and salvation, not whether baptism is necessary. We are arguing rather, in what way is baptism necessary. Because of this, engaging in discussion of theoreticals where a believer is not baptised and how that is possible is irellevant.

Affirmative Argument
As Con, my burden of proof is simply to show that Pro's argument is not sufficient to affirm the resolution. In addition, since we are arguing about what the Bible teaches, I must simply show that my opponent has not proven that the Bible affirmatively teaches that baptism is a contingent requirement for salvation. As such, a single example of a person who had obtained salvation in the Bible but was not baptised should suffice. Now, my opponent is likely to bring forth the argument that while Christ was present on earth he had the authority to forgive sins without baptism, however in order to assert this he will need to demonstrate biblically why this authority to forgive sins becomes diminished after his asscent to heaven.

Example 1) My opponent has already brought forward the example of a sinful woman who came and annointed Jesus's feet (Luke 7). In the story, Jesus is dining at the home of an influential pharisee named Simon. A woman who is simply called "a sinner" comes and weeps at Jesus's feet. Washes them with her tears and annoints them with oil. Simon objects to this and Christ asks him if a person who's large debt is cancelled will be more thankful than a person who's small debt will be more thankful. While there is importance in the answer, for our purpose the important part is that Jesus is stating that this woman's debt (sin) is about to be cancelled. What happens next is significant. Christ proclaims her "saved." He says "your faith has saved you." The word for "saved" here is "sesōken" and is the word we get "soteriology" from. In addition this word appears in the perfect tense, which indicates that this is verb that began in the past and has present implications. We have no indication whatsoever that this woman had been baptised, yet Christ declares that she has indeed been saved.

Example 2) In Luke 8, we see the story of a woman who was afflicted with non-fatal bleeding for a period of 12 years. The woman comes to Jesus in faith and believes that if she simply grasps Jesus robe she would be healed. She does so and immediately is healed. Jesus percieves that someone has been healed and seeks her out. Once she identifies herself Jesus proclaims salvation over her. Now, while most translations use the phrase "Your faith has made you well/whole," a literal translation would reveal the exact same phrasing as the sinful woman of Luke 8. He proclaims "sesōken" to the woman. Again, we see that someone has been declared to be saved with no indication that they had been baptised.

Example 3) In Luke 18, a blind begger comes in faith to Jesus. He simply cries out to Jesus to have mercy on him. Christ addresses the man and when finding out that he desires to have is sight restores, Jesus again proclaims "sesōken." Again, we see a person who has been declared saved with no indication that baptism has occured.

Example 4) Earlier in Luke 18 we see a parable of two persons standing before God. The first is a pharisee who finds confidence of salvation in his works. The second is a humble tax collector who acknolwedges his status before God as a sinner, and cries out for mercy. Of the tax collector he states "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified." There is no indication in the parable that the person was baptised prior to this incident, or between going from the temple to his house. In this parable, baptism is not a part of justification.

I believe that I have sufficiently made the point that although baptism is a necessary outcome of salvation, it is not a requirement. I have done so by providing four New Testament examples of persons declared saved by Christ himself with no mention of Baptism whatsoever.

I look forward to my opponent's response, and will offer specific rebuttals to his opening argument in the 2nd round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


To cut the long story short, my opponent believes that the bible teaches baptism is a resultative requirement of salvation, meaning "if you are saved you will be baptised while I believe that the bible teaches that Baptism is essential to salvation.

My Rebuttal:

Example1) As i have said in the first argument "Tell us what kind of believers are under consideration! Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?"

Example2) Again, my opponent showed similarity of Greek meaning and literal meanings betwween Luke 7 and 8. Again "Tell us what kind of believers are under consideration! Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?"

Example 3) Same with example 1 and 2

Example4) In the first place i do not approve salvation by works, i have already clarified that:
3. That we are not saved by the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).
4. That we are not saved by man's own righteousness (Tit. 3:5).


I'll discuss further of the necessity of baptism next round. And I expect my opponent to rebut my first argument. Sorry if this rebuttal seems to be lacking, it's because of lack of time. But we will be debating more thoroughly next round.



I would like to thank my opponent for continuing in this debate, and look forward to the future rounds. I would like to request that my opponent wait to post his responses as long as possible. I am traveling this week and would like to avoid missing a round.

This round shall take form in two parts. The first part will be a response to my opponent's attack on my position found in his round 2 post. the second shall be a more indepth rebuttal of my opponent's opening argument.

Response to Round 2)

My opponent has brought up the dichotomy of "Are they obedient believers or disobedient believers?" Now, while this has great soteriological bearing, I am not sure what bearing it has on this debate. We are not debating the overall proposition of Sola Fide, we are simply debating the necessity of baptism as a contingent requirement of salvation. My opponent seems to be conflating the two. In all actuality, we know nothing about these individuals either before or after their encounter with Jesus. What we do know is only what the text has shown us. Regardless of this fact, their relative obedience does not bear any impact on the debate, as the topic at hand is baptism. For the sake of the debate, however, I shall answer my opponent's questions.

Example 1) The kind of believer that is presented in this account is a believer which baptism is not mentioned. While it is possible that the person had been baptised, we simply do not know. However, what is striking about this account is that Jesus does not command her to be baptised. He simply proclaims that by means of this woman's faith, she has been saved.

Example 2) Similar to the first story, this woman's story is entierly unknown in regard to her baptism. We simply see her approach Jesus and exercise her faith. She is then declared saved as a result of that faith. Once again, no indication of baptism happening prior to the encounter, nor a command to be baptised after the encounter, is given.

Example 3) Like the first two, this person is declared saved simply because of his faith. Jesus does not indicate that this person had been baptised, nor does he indicate that the person will be baptised. No command for baptism is given. This person is simply declared saved because of his faith.

Please note that all three of the prior examples use the same word to describe their salvation. That word, "sesōken," is a Perfect Active Indicative verb. For those of you who are not trained in advanced grammar, let me unpack that for you.

When a verb is in the Perfect Tense, it conveys a sense that the verbal process happened in the past and continues to have implications for the present.

An Active verb simply means that the subject of the sentence (in this case "faith") is doing the verbal process.

Indicative verbs make statements of fact. They indicate what reality is.

When taken together we have the verbal process of "save" being used to state the fact that at the point in time of the speaker salvation has already occured, has present implications, and is a statement of fact.

Simply put, Jesus is stating that these persons are currently in a state of "saved" and that salvation was conducted by their faith.

Example 4) This person is entierly theoretical, so we must recognize that Jesus constructs this reality out of his imagination. As such, he very easily could have indicated that the tax collector was baptised. If baptism is such an integral part of justification, as my opponent asserts, then why is it entierly absent from this entierly theoretical situation. Would we not expect Jesus to include ALL contingent parts of salvation in a theoretical description of what saves a person? In fact, he does not indicate that baptism is a requirement for salvation, and we should take Jesus at face value, that in fact baptism is not a contingent requirement for salvation.

To summarize, unless my opponent can conclusively show that the persons in these passages were indeed baptised prior to salvation occuring, we have four examples of persons who were in a current state of salvation without having been baptised, nor recieving a command to be baptised at a later point.

Rebutall to Pro's Round 2)

Obedient Faith
My oppoenent spends a substantial amount of time defending the fact that faith saves only when it acts. However, this is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution only includes the act of baptism. As such, all discussion of the difference between "by faith alone vs faith that acts" is a red herring and must be ignored. Beyond that, to paint a picture of Sola Fide that presupposes that salvific faith without action is possible is a strawman.The core of Sola Fide is to describe the active agent in salvation, that it is our faith alone that saves us... not that obedience is not a necessary result of faith, only that it doesn't play a part in our justification.

Ordo Salutis
The Order of Salvation, that my opponent presents is based on a faulty understandin of Greek Grammar. My opponent presents several passages in which an apparent sequence is given. However, this is not the case. In Greek, there are several grammatical differences from English. The primary difference is that Greek is not bound by a certian word order. That is to say that in Greek the sentence "Store to I wen tto get juicy oranges many" is identical to "I went to the store to get many juicy oranges." They convey the same meaning, regardless of the word order. That means that the passages in question very easily could have been written in a different order and meant the same thing. Acts 2:38 could have been translated "Remission of sin, Belief, Baptism" or "Baptism, Belief, Salvation" and still meant the same thing. The implication that this has is that the order of words does not necessarily indicate sequencing unless specific temporal sequences (typically then) is used. So my opponent's point falls apart because it is entirely based on sequencing that he eroneously read into the text. In addition, my opponent asks "Is it not strange that the Holy Spirit never one time had these in the right order?" My response is to point at the four examples presented in my first round in which Baptism is not a part of the equation at all. The order that is presented in those four examples is "Faith" leading to "Saved" which then leads often to "Go and sin no more (be obedient)."
For Remission of Sins - Acts 2:38
This passage is commonly brought up in this instance, and I will admit that this is ONE possible interpretation. However, the Greek preposition "eis," which is translated as "for" can mean many things. It could also mean "for" in terms of "to bring about." This is how the term is being understood by my opponent in Acts 2:38. His interpretation is that Baptism brings about the remission of sins. However, there is another possibility. The word "eis" can also indicate that the word prior to the preposition, baptism, is done because of or a result of the word after, remission of sins. We see a similar construct in Philemon 1:6. "and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ." Paul is not indicating that he prays that the sharing is to bring about the sake of Christ. That translation would be nonsensical. Rather, he is saying that BECAUSE of the sake of Christ he prays for full knowledge. Is it not POSSIBLE that a more proper translation for Acts 2:38 is that we are baptised BECAUSE of the remission of sins? That baptism is done as a resultative requirement of the forgiveness of sins?

I am running out of space, so I will address other points as needed in future rounds. At this point, my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show that universally, baptism is a contingent requirement of salvation. I have, on the other hand, presented four examples of person who were saved without baptism.

Debate Round No. 2


DAN123 forfeited this round.


Please extend my arguments into the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all I want to thank my opponent for his kind consideration. And I hope we could have a part 2 of this debate.

My rebuttals to round 2

This is quite easy. I am just amazed this person did not try to use the thief on the cross.

Let us say I have 50 Million dollars. Let us again say I made a Last Will and Testament. In this Will, I leave all 50 Million dollars to my son, PROVIDED he reads the Bible every day for a year before he receives the money. Now, reading the Bible does not earn anyone 50 Million dollars. If it did, we would all be rich. But, it is a condition I set.

Now, let us say sometime before I die, my son shows me the faith that comes from reading the Bible every day for much more than a year. I reach into the safe next to my deathbed and remove all 50 Million dollars. I try to put it in my son's hand, but a lawyer stops me. He tells me, "You cannot do that because of the Will you wrote. Would this not be ludicrous?

While I am alive, I can do anything with that money I wish to do. This principle is demonstrated throughout the Bible, but the best known case is in Acts 5:1-10.

While the money was in their hand, they had total control over it. But, let us look at the passage that contains the key to my opponent’s question.

Hebrews 9:15-16, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."

When Christ was still here on earth, He had the authority to forgive people of their sins. Look at Mark 2:9-12:

Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven;' or to say, 'Arise, and take up your bed, and walk? 'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- "I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house." He arose, and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Before Jesus died on the cross, He was free to change conditions of His New Testament in any way He chose. After His death, according to God, the Testament was in force. Once the Testament was in force, all stipulations and conditions contained therein will be fulfilled or the inheritance (salvation) will not be probated unto us.

Response to Con's rebuttal on Round 2

Obedient Faith

Here my opponent doesn’t get the picture of the argument; he even accused me of a red herring fallacy. And I think he did not read my whole opening argument. I said:

The truth is that the sinner is saved by a faith which acts. When Paul was justified by faith, he had peace with God (Rom. 5:1). But he did not have peace on the Damascus road when he was told to go into the city where it would be told him what he mustdo (Acts 9:6). He did not find peace immediately in the city when he would not eat or drink (Acts 9:9). He had peace with God when he obeyed the command to arise, be baptized, and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). Only after he was obedient in baptism did he arise, take food. and was strengthened (Acts 9:18-19). That is when he had peace with God; therefore, that is when he was justified by faith! Man is not justified by faith alone (Jas. 2:24-26).”

Get the point Reformedarsenal? To summarize my point, when you are justified by faith you have peace with God (Rom. 5:1). You have been saved. But how and when was Paul justified? When did he have peace with God? When did he see salvation? Did he see salvation by faith alone just as my opponent teaches? No. He had peace with God when he was baptized, when he obeyed!!

Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation)

Here my opponent falsely accused me of having “a faulty understanding of Greek Grammar”. My opponent’s assertion on the Greek structure is not the whole picture. Greek word order is relaxed to some degree, but the word endings are more important. These endings are called the morphology of the words and they are critical. But this is at best a tangential point.

The true issue is that each step in the path to salvation is a logical progression. For instance, Romans 10:17 states that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. So hearing the Word logically precedes believing it. Believing then logically precedes other actions because no one acts unless they believe there is at least some possibility of achieving the desired outcome. Romans 10:9-10 is powerful because it says that belief is unto righteousness. Verse 14 (and even 9-17 entire) addresses this logical progression. How can a man call on the Lord (which is a specific phrase with a specific meaning, but ultimately is a reference to the point of salvation) if He does not believe? Note that logically Paul places calling on the name of the Lord (which is the point one is saved, whatever calling on the name of the Lord means) after belief.

My opponent must address the topic of salvation in the way he have because if he approach it conceptually (in other words, what does the Bible say about each of those steps to salvation rather than what "order" are they presented in any given sentence) it is devastating to their case. Faith must follow hearing. Confession of faith must follow faith. Belief, confession, and repentance are all to salvation (Romans 10:10; 2 Cor. 7:10). Therefore salvation comes after all of these others.

Most importantly is how immersion is described in the NT. It is the point we die to the old man and rise up as the new creation (Rom. 6:3-5). It is the point we are born again and enter the kingdom, the church (John 3:3,5). It is when we obey from the heart that pattern of doctrine that we are made free from sin (Rom. 6:16-18), yielding ourselves to Christ through obedience. It is immersion that doth also now save us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21) as an antitype of the Flood that destroyed the wickedness in the world and saved Noah and his family from that wickedness by a type of new Creation (1 Pet. 3:20). In every place, immersion is the pivotal point, the point of transition. According to 1 John 5:6,8, it is at the point of water immersion that we contact the blood.

Once a person is immersed, then you teach them the rest and they are to go and sin no more (Matt. 28:19-20).

For Remission of Sins - Acts 2:38

To avoid a supposed contradiction with the Bible truth my opponent says that the greek word “Eis” could mean “because of” and to support this assertion he misuses the scriptural truth by using Phil1:6 to establish the usage of greek eis in Acts 2:38. First of all no bible translator would put “because of” in Acts 2:38. This assertion of reformedarsenal has no base and support and also fallible. Second, Using Phil. 1:6 to establish the usage of the Greek eis in Acts 2:38 is flawed. The phrases are in no way parallel, neither in the English nor the Greek.

Acts 2:38, eis aphesis hamartia ("..for the remission of sins..")

Phil. 1:6, En Humin eis Christos Iesous (“…is in you in Christ Jesus..”)

Refromedarsenal has ignored Matthew 26:28, which is an exact parallel in both English and Greek, in favour of Matthew 12:41. I wonder why?

Acts 2:38, eis aphesis hamartia ("..for the remission of sins..")
Matthew 26:28, eis aphesis hamartia ("..for the remission of sins..")

If Acts 2:38 teaches that we are baptized because we already have received the remission of sins, then consistency demands that Matthew 26:28 teaches that Jesus' blood was shed because we already had the remission of sins. You can't have it both ways! Which will you concede to? Baptism is unto the remission of sins, or Jesus' blood was shed because we were already saved?



Thank you to DAN123 for his contribution. I am short on time, so I shall be brief.

My opponent responds to my examples by constructing an imaginary situation in which a person has left all of their money to their son, with certian conditions. He claims that prior to death that person is able to change the terms of the inheritance, but after that persons death the terms are locked.

This would be a solid point... if my opponent denied the resurrection of Christ. The fact is this. A "Last Will and Testament" is only "Last" because you are dead, and cannot change it. If Christ wished to change his testament now, he could do so... because according to the Bible, he lives.

Furthermore, just because Christ COULD change the terms, does not mean that he DID change the terms. My opponent has done nothing to show that there was an actual change in the terms. Furthermore, the terms contained in the New Testament are the same as the Terms in the Old Testament. Allow me to demonstrate:

My opponent quotes James 2:24-26, however he does not complete the quote. When we look at the "works" that Abraham was justified according to (as opposed to faith alone). In verse 23 James writes "and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" and he was called a friend of God." (ESV) James here is quoting Genesis 15:6 when he comments that it is Abraham's faith justiified him. The nuance is that James uses a different word here for "believed" which means "entrusted." (epistuen) This is the way that Paul uses the word "pistis/pistuo"." For James, pistis is is simply an intellectual asccent, it is this intellectual asscent that the demons do.

The point is this, we see that Abraham was justified by a radical and complete trust in God. He trusted him, and that was credited to him as righteousness. All throughout the Old Testament we see that people who trusted God were saved. Just as in the New Testament, explicily in my examples, faith in God saved people. It made them whole and complete.

I know that I have not responded to my opponent's red hearing regarding obedience, and Paul's salvation. Nor have I responded to my oppoenent's rebuttals concerning the Ordo Saluts or Acts 2:38. The simple fact is that I do not need to. My opponent has not demonstrated that te means of salvation were different after Jesus' death, while I have demonstrated that they are the same from before his birth, during his life, and after his life. After all, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Heb 13.8, ESV) Unless my opponent was able to prove that he DID change his Testament and not mearly that he COULD change his Testament, my point still stands.

In summary, I have shown 4 cases in the Gospel accounts where a person was saved (specifically the term saved was applied) without having been baptised. I have presented a 5th case in the Old Testament of Abraham, but could present many more. In addition to this, my opponent has supplied the case of the Thief on the Cross as a 6th case. Needless to say, there are examples all over scripture of persons who were indeed saved without the act of baptism. As such, the resolution that "the Script. teach water baptism is to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins." has been shown to be negated. The Scriptures clearly teach by mean of example that a penitent believer is saved by their faith. While I acknowledge that Baptism is a necessary requirement, the example's I have shown that Baptism is not essential to salvation.

For these reasons I urge you to vote Con.

Thank you and God bless.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
No votes? Nothing?
Posted by DAN123 7 years ago
Sorry for the forfeit i have so many exams this week so sorry.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
Looks good, I think.

I'll wait a few days too accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff