First of all we don't know that this man was never baptized in his entire life, he could have been baptized unto John's Baptism.
Second being baptized in Jesus name was necessary after the death of Jesus because the Lord died for us. We must now accept His death (through repentance), burial (full immersion in water baptism), reserrection (receiving the Holy Spirit, which is being born-again).
As he stood before the counsel and testified of Jesus, Peter declared, "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey him" Acts 5:32
2007-10-12 04:30:52 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME IS..........REQUIRED TO HAVE SALVATION.
2007-10-12 06:53:56 · update #1
He that believeth and is BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth NOT SHALL BE DAMNED" Mark 16:15-16. Salvation comes through believing, but believing is incomplete apart from baptism. To repent and be baptized is how we believe.
2007-10-12 07:08:46 · update #2
The premise of this question is mistaken, since the evildoer alongside Jesus has not yet been resurrected. Thus, he has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate that he qualifies to remain in paradise eternally.
The bible makes it absolutely certain that Jesus and the evildoer did not reunite in any heavenly paradise within one day of their impalement.
Ancient Greek (the language of the Gospels) did not have punctuation as modern English does, so the sequence of words alluded to in this question can be translated in two different ways:
(Luke 23:43, NWT) [Jesus] said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”
(Luke 23:43, KJV) Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
So, did Jesus use the word "today" to emphasize that he was then and there making a promise, or did Jesus use the word "today" to describe the immediately subsequent 24-hour period during which he and the evildoer would be reunited in paradise? The NWT and KJV seem to disagree, but which rendering is more consistent with the rest of the bible?
Jesus already knew that he would be completely incapacitated for three days following his human death, so it would be entirely inconsistent for him to pretend that he would be reunited with anyone within one day of his impalement.
(Matthew 12:40, NWT) just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
(Matthew 12:40, KJV) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(Luke 24:46, NWT) In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day
(Luke 24:46, KJV) Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day
So clearly, Jesus could not have intended to imply that he and the evildoer would be reunited anywhere within 24 hours of speaking this reassuring promise. Instead, Jesus was referring to an earthly paradise, into which that evildoer is assured a resurrection sometime following Armageddon.
(Acts 17:30-31) God... is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent. Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead.
(John 11:23-27) Jesus said to her: “Your brother will rise.” Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.”
Learn more:
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/20010315/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/20041115/article_02.htm
2007-10-12 07:10:27 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well first of all just like the Serpent tempting Eve with the forbidden fruit there is no mention what so ever that this fruit was an Apple. However time and time again you hear people say it was an Apple. It just isn't in the Bible. Likewise, you always hear people say "The thief on the cross"... Again, no mention what so ever in scripture that this man was in fact a thief. The bible simply says criminal. So let's get that straight before we continue on with any argument. So either Jesus was lying to the man. Or the Roman Guards let the criminal climb down off his cross for a quick dunk before nailing him back up there again. Or water baptism isn't essential to salvation. Heck, I'd hate to be an unsaved man up in an airplane being witnessed to by an evangelist when I realize that I need to believe and be saved. Pity if the airplane then crashed before I could make my way to a sufficient pool of water and actually be saved for real.
Extenuating circumstances have no power over faith.
2007-10-14 20:33:51 · answer #2 · answered by David L 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the bible does not state that full immersion in water is the only way to salvation,baptism in water confirms before men that you are a believer of God before men,baptism in the Holy Spirit is of Jesus according to John 1:33 and that is what we need,the theif on the cross whether baptised in water or not Jesus told this day you will be with Me in paradise believed by faith and the Holy Spirit
2007-10-12 11:50:12 · answer #3 · answered by loveChrist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus could see the heart of thief on the cross. He was truly repentant. The Thief repented before the crowd Publicly.Water baptism Is a Public confession of your faith. Jesus was crucified Publicly for the sins of humanity. Therefore you have to make your Public confession. Jesus said If you deny Me before men then I will deny you before My Father In heaven. That's why when people get married there has to be a witness.
2007-10-12 12:07:15 · answer #4 · answered by Isabella 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If salvation relies on the "all you have to do" work of acceptance, then your arguments work, and there may as well be a proper formula for baptism, too. The Bible is definitely silent about the thief on the cross, and you can make additional arguments from the possibility of baptism prior to his crucifixion. Your question makes things very easy for those who are looking for a simple answer.
2007-10-13 14:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by ccrider 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Salvation comes through faith, by grace, not of works. Baptism is like communion, a wonderful obedience to God that only brings one closer to God. But it is not what saves you. Only Christ Jesus and His death and resurrection can do that.
2007-10-12 11:43:33 · answer #6 · answered by padwinlearner 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are not any outright laws or commandments in the Bible on baptism that I know of. Baptism is more or less a rule of the churches that states you have openly accepted Jesus as your savior and will live a christian
.
2007-10-12 12:59:34 · answer #7 · answered by preacher 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Baptism is not needed because after the Holy Spirit entered the world we are baptized by him and not water anymore. The water baptism is a public expression of our decision. The water signifies our immersion into Him but in reality it already happened by the spirit when we were saved.
2007-10-12 11:40:05 · answer #8 · answered by Connie D 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He was baptised that afternoon- on the cross he accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. That is all that is necessary for a true baptism. He had NO WAY he could be baptised in water. That is for us, off of a cross, to do.
2007-10-12 12:09:50 · answer #9 · answered by Mark S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are correct - baptism IS necessary.
"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
. "He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace" (Titus 3:5–7). This "washing of regeneration" is baptism. It actually does something to us. It regenerates, says Scripture.
John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
"Bible Christians," avoiding the plain sense, say that Christians misunderstood this verse from the earliest years right up to the Reformation. Instead of "water and the Spirit" being read as a unit (baptism), they should be read independently: water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit (accepting Christ as Lord as Savior). Only the second is functional; the former is decorative—commanded by Christ but nevertheless not really doing anything to the recipient.
Turn to Acts 2:38, where Peter says, "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." Notice the sequence: First comes repentance; then comes baptism—which effects the forgiveness of sins—and then, as a consequence of that forgiveness and therefore of baptism, comes the gift (the grace) of the Holy Spirit. This verse makes sense only if it is understood as saying that baptism is not a mere symbol. If baptism were just an ordinance and not a sacrament, why would Peter bother to include it in his instruction?
The head of the apostles is supported by Paul, who said to the Corinthians that "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified" (1 Cor. 6:11). By washed he was not referring to the Corinthians’ bathing practices, because sanctification and justification are not dependent on hygienic practices. The verb meant that they had been baptized, and it was their baptism that brought them, for the first time, a state of sanctification and justification. Baptism changed them internally, spiritually, as it changes us.
2007-10-12 11:41:50 · answer #10 · answered by SpiritRoaming 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I do not think he had quite enough time to do it. It is faith in Jesus and him alone that rewards us with salvation. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are events in a believers life that should follow their putting faith in Jesus - if time permits.
2007-10-12 11:37:37 · answer #11 · answered by A Voice 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋