"Are Unbaptized Believers Lost?"

[toddrow]

tennman,

Sorry about the delay in my reply.  In response to your inquiries and comments:

[In your opinion, why does Peter not use all 5 steps to salvation at once, ever?]

At least two reasons come to mind.  The first is illustrated beautifully in Jule Miller's filmstrips and videos of the same, in describing the different answers a man would receive to the same question "How far to NYC?" after beginning a long cross-country journey from LA.  The man would receive different answers to that same question as he traveled on his way, and everyone would be telling the truth (assuming they gave the correct answer).  In the conversion accounts in the book of Acts, we see every step in the plan of salvation mentioned in at least one account: the Philippian jailer was told to believe in Jesus (Acts 16); those on the day of Pentecost were commanded to repent and be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38); the Ethiopian nobleman was prompted to affirm his faith in Jesus by confession (Acts 8).  Also, confession may be inferred in Acts 2, as that would be the only way for the apostles to know whom to baptize.  So, in the very first gospel sermon of Acts 2, we have the entire plan of salvation in front of us: the preaching of the gospel (vv 22-36), belief implied (v 37), repentance and baptism commanded (v 38), confession inferred (v 41), and faithful living exemplified (vv 42-47).

And in all these and other conversion accounts, the individuals were baptized.  Any honest, open-minded individual who reads the book of Acts can reach no other conclusion than the necessity of baptism to receive salvation and remission of sins.  Again, as I mentioned in my article, this is a key truth used in leading people out of denominational error and into Jesus Christ.

Also, in His earthly ministry and teaching, Jesus Himself joined every step in "the plan of salvation" to being saved: hearing the gospel - Mark 16:15-16; faith - John 8:24; repentance - Luke 13:3,5; 24:47; confession - Matthew 10:32-33; baptism - Mark 16:16; faithful living - Matthew 10:22.

Second: the general use of sermons on the plan of salvation (at least as far as I am concerned) are used on those who already believe in God and Jesus Christ, but are entangled in denominational (usually Calvinistic) error.  Therefore it is necessary, not to go back and lay a foundation for belief in God and Jesus Christ, but to correct their misunderstanding of the God's plan to save.  When I go to West Africa each year (I've been 4 times since 1999), when I am trying to convert a Muslim or someone in a pagan religion, I do not give them a "What Must I Do to be Saved?" type sermon.  I go back and establish the validity and authority of the Bible, tell them the story of Jesus, and then show them what Jesus demands of them.  This way, people are converted to Jesus and not to baptism or some persuasive preacher (2 Cor 2:1ff).

[I just wish it were clearer.]

I don't see how God could have made it much clearer than He did.  And to imply otherwise is an indictment against God, and the Holy Spirit in particular.  Do you really believe the God Who spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1; Heb 11:3), Who upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; 2 Peter 3:7); Who sent His only Son into the world to suffer and die as a common criminal that we might be saved (Rom 5:6-10); went to all that trouble and then gave us a book that didn't make it perfectly clear what we must do to be saved?  Just dropped a giant jigsaw puzzle on humanity and left us to our own devices?  Like it or not, that is the logical conclusion of your statement.

[Because it is not clear, I feel that God will grant grace to those who do not complete it.]

I think I have shown that it's perfectly clear.  And, this may sound harsh, how you "feel" is of absolutely no consequence (Prov 14:12; Jer 10:23; 17:9).  (Consider those who didn't get it right in Matthew 7:21-23.)  The only thing that matters is what God teaches in His Word.  

What I find most interesting about all this is that people seem to draw the line of "confusion" (i.e., appropriation of grace without obedience) at baptism.  

What about those who don't complete it by confessing Jesus (Rom 10:9-10)?  

What about those who don't complete it by repenting of their sins (Acts 17:30-31)?  

What about those who don't complete it by coming to faith in the deity of Jesus (John 8:24; 14:6, etc)?  

What about those who don't complete it by having faith in God (Heb 11:6)?

What about those who don't complete it in reference to the all-sufficiency of the Bible (2 Tim 3:15-17)?  

What about those who don't complete it by worshiping the pope, or any other man (John 4:23-24)?  

Where are you going to draw the line?  If you can minimize / eliminate the requirement of baptism, you can minimize / eliminate every single doctine I just mentioned.

toddrow

newtome,

I am enjoying.

One thing, when you say "baptism saves" then doesn't that take the focus away from Jesus Christ? If you want to say "Jesus saves and baptism brings you into Christ", but when people say baptism saves it sounds like a work to me too, and certainly to others.

It sounds like faith in baptism.

God bless.

[segell]

Janine

Thanks.  See my reply to you on the other thread.

Steve

[segell]

Todd

Please, please listen to what I am trying to communicate.  I am talking about SALVATION not the essential need to obey God's teachings AS A CHRISTIAN!!  This is a fine distinction, I know - but please try and join me in at least acknowledging the distinction.  We will continue discussing apples and oranges otherwise.  

I say this with great respect.  From Scripture I believe the view that your obedience in any way merits God's grace is  in error and spiritually dangersous. It places the focus on the person and what he needs to do and not on the Lord Jesus Christ and ALL that He has provided by HIS obedience - even unto death.  

You look to examples of commands and obedience in the Bible to suppor your perspective - but those do not go to God's plan of salvation, His gift of eternal life by His grace through faith.  The necessity of our obedience (purpose of which is to advance HIS Kingdom and for us to experience Christ's joy) comes after being saved by grace through faith.  Your perspective that we gain God's grace through our obedience makes a mockery of His grace and Christ's obedience and death.  

If fact, our continued obedience in faith is by and through His strength and GRACE.  Our obedience as  believers does not indebt God to love us any more or less.  In fact, as Christians, to obey is our duty and obligates God to do nothing toward us.  Luke 17:10, Job 41:11, Romans 11:35.  

Todd, I write this because I fear that sincere, God fearing people such as you, with a heartfelt desire to obey God, misplace the purpose of our obedience and place it as a precondition to being saved.  If that were so, by what power in you did you have the ability to reconcile yourself to God - when Scripture tells us over and over that God reconciles us to Him.  2 Cor 5:16-21, John 6:44.  

As to denominations, whether you wish to accept this as truth or not, the church of Christ is composed of ALL believers - many, many of whom worship in denominations, even the denomination of churches of Christ born out of the Restoration Movement of the early 19th Century.  

Todd, as to our sinful nature -  What do you think "evil desire" (NIV) in James 1:14 is?  Where did that come from?  It's from our sin nature, I believe.  The nature that comes with our birth, even our conception.  Unless we can truly see our condition, our desperate wicked condition - we won't be able to see Christ in His fullness, nor God and His Grace.

By the way, I didn't mean to presume that you have not studied Scripture, I meant to invite you to study it from a new perspective.  It's evident you read and study the Bible, Todd.  It seems to me that you do with an eye and perspective more focussed on you and what you think you must to instead of on Christ Jesus.  

As to Titus 2:11-14, the NIV reads that God's grace has "appeared" to all men - not that all men have received it.  And of course all men are not saved.  Look deeply into the verses in Matt 7:21-27, Todd.  Especially verse 22.  What was it that those "evildoers" called upon?  They called upon their merit in the things they purportedly did in the name of Christ.  They called upon THEIR acts.  That's why Jesus said, "I never knew you".  You see, their focus was on themselves and not Christ Jesus.

That's the counsel I try to bring to this board in addressing the purpose of our obedience.  Paul quickly and strongly responded to Christian Jews who insisted that Gentiles "do" certain things first before being accepted as Christians.  There are counsel and caution in these examples of Scripture that, in my view, have strong application today.  We should never, ever place conditions on fellowship whereby we expect another to "do" certain things, certain ways before considering them Christians.  We should never, ever count our obedience as a prerequisite to gaining God's grace through faith.  God has not ordered us to be saved by our obedience - He has commanded us to trust Him, have faith in EVERYTHING His Son accomplished.  How could we possibly obey Him before being saved.  How could we possibly love Him before being saved?  We obey Him because we love Him because He first loved us.  We obey Him so that we can know intimately His very joy!!  John 15:11.  By the way, did you realize that Jesus was able to obey the Father because of the work the Father was doing in Him?  John 14:10.  Jesus only boasted in the Father.  We can only boast in Him.  Our ability to obey, our wisdom, our fruits are because of God's Spirit at work in all who are His.  2 Thes 2:13, 1 Cor 2:6-16; Romans 8.  Our salvation is assured and sealed by God's Spirit, Ephesians 1.  

Throughout Scripture, those who obeyed did so out of love and reverence for God through FAITH in Him.  Your example of Noah is a misread and misunderstanding of what I have attempted to communicate.  Noah was ALREADY considered righteous by God before he responded with obedience.  He responded because He trusted God - not in order to be saved,  because he already was saved, considered righteous.  Noah's example is for Christians not unbelievers!!  Take your eyes off of you and onto Christ and His obedience and your subsequent obedience and devotion will come from a deep love for all that He has done for you, not what you are trying to do for Him.

Take care, Todd.  

Steve

[zoonance]

Maybe the question was:

"Are unbaptized believers who are otherwise unanymously determined to be saved (clearly repented, obvious or not so obvious changed heart, filled to the brim with the Holy Spirit, speaks in tongues with the best of them, picks up venemous snakes and drinks poison, great guy with changed present from horrible past, etc.) lost BECAUSE they have not been immersed in water?"

[janine]

Hah-hah.  It is to laugh.

Anyone, wet or dry or damp-around-the-edges, is lost or saved, damned or redeemed, due to their condition of being in Christ or not.  Their location of being in Christ or not. 

I contend that there will have been some things that happened along the way for a person who now finds himself "saved".  He will have understood in some way that he needed what Jesus did for him.  He will have resolved to turn his life toward or add his life to Christ's life -- and he will have reported to Jesus for that effect.

He will also have submitted to joining Jesus in His death and burial and resurrection by submitting to immersion.

Am I saying that anyone who has not experienced those things I mentioned is lost?  Not exactly -- because I am not the arbiter of that decision, am I?  What I am saying is that I have my doubts about your final eternal outcome if you die outside of Christ.  And that the immersion is one part of that whole picture, that complete image, of the saved person in this life, as I understand it from Scripture.

You might as well ask "Are Unrepentant Believers Lost?" or "Are People Who Wouldn't Know Jesus From  Attila the Hun Lost?".  All certainly post-provoking questions, but all still boil down to this:

It's not the absence of baptism that damns you -- it's the absence of the Messiah.

So, for me, the question doesn't revolve around nit-pickiness or stuff some dude in this time thought he understood from Scripture.  It revolves around what a redeemed child of God looks like.  And yes, I do believe, from Scripture, that said redeemed child of God will have been immersed into Christ.  In water.  For-unto-because of the forgiveness of sins, and/or because it was good enough for Jesus, and/or because Paul explained that joining Jesus in His death = joining Him in His resurrection.

All sorts of aspects and reasons to it -- but it will be there, baptism.  If you don't think so that's between God and you -- but I will not be too shy to tell you that you ought to do it.

[Bon Voyage]

The question is not biblical.  Biblically, there is no such thing as an unbaptized believer in the New Testament.  The question isn't answered in the bible at all.  We will have to leave it up to God.  I don't know whether someone who is unbaptized is ignorant or defiant.

[James Rondon]

It's not the absence of baptism that damns you -- it's the absence of the Messiah.

[janine]

 

Now let's all go get in the water with the Messiah.

[Jimmy]

Todd

Please, please listen to what I am trying to communicate.  I am talking about SALVATION not the essential need to obey God's teachings AS A CHRISTIAN!!  This is a fine distinction, I know - but please try and join me in at least acknowledging the distinction.  We will continue discussing apples and oranges otherwise.  

I say this with great respect.  From Scripture I believe the view that your obedience in any way merits God's grace is  in error and spiritually dangersous. It places the focus on the person and what he needs to do and not on the Lord Jesus Christ and ALL that He has provided by HIS obedience - even unto death.  

You have convinced yourself, beyond all logical discusssion to the contrary, that to believe or to have faith does not constitute doing.  I do think that perhaps you perceive faith much like instinct.  For some it is just there and that is your concept of Grace.  And that is the basis for salvation.  That is the clear message that runs through all of your discussions in this area.

[Bon Voyage]

It's not the absence of baptism that damns you -- it's the absence of the Messiah.

That does put it in the correct light.

[Jaime]

But some would argue that the Messiah must be "put on" in Baptism.

[Jimbob]

But some would argue that the Messiah must be "put on" in Baptism.

Some, as in Paul the Apostle?

[zoonance]

But some would argue that the Messiah must be "put on" in Baptism.

Some, as in Paul the Apostle?

That pesky Paul.  He didn't mean it the way it sounds (or at least how it was written there to the old colossians - the prereformation colossians anyway)

[James Rondon]

Now let's all go get in the water with the Messiah.

The Messiah's not in the water.

[James Rondon]

But some would argue that the Messiah must be "put on" in Baptism.

Some, as in Paul the Apostle?

Is that what he was talking about in Romans 13:14?

[janine]

Now let's all go get in the water with the Messiah.

The Messiah's not in the water.

Apparently He is everywhere but the water.

[James Rondon]

I don't understand your point...

Even so, getting back to your earlier post, please tell me why I need "to go get in the water"?

[Jimbob]

But some would argue that the Messiah must be "put on" in Baptism.

Some, as in Paul the Apostle?

Galatians 3:27

[James Rondon]

Interestingly enough, that was not Paul's argument in that passage.

[Jimbob]

Seeing as how I didn't even make an argument, that's an interesting response.

[James Rondon]

Read the whole post, including the quotes.

[Jimbob]

He didn't make an argument in that quote either.  Jaime did mention that some would argue that Christ is put on in baptism.  I simply had a verse come to mind by Paul that references that Christ is "put on" in baptism (whether or not Jaime had that passage in mind I dunno...waiting for him to clarify).  That Paul makes the statement while making a different arguement doesn't negate that Paul apparently believed, and expected the Galatian recipients of the letter to realize, that they ("they" being, according to Paul's statements, the baptized) had "put on Christ." 

[Jaime]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

[marc]

I'm going to rearrange the order of the posts from the last couple of days so they'll match the rest of the thread. 

[James Rondon]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

Jaime: "But some would argue that the Messiah must be 'put on' in Baptism."
jmg3rd: "Some, as in Paul the Apostle?"
jmg3rd: "Galatians 3:27"

James Rondon: "Interestingly enough, that was not Paul's argument in that passage."

("that" being "the Messiah must be 'put on' in baptism")

[Jaime]

Am I missing something James? Wasn't Paul simply saying in Gal. 3:27, that we put on Christ the Messiah in Baptism? I don't understand your replies, sorry.

Is the word "must" the rub?

I concede he didn't say must, but he did say that all who were baptised DID put on Christ.

[James Rondon]

Galatians 3:27 does not say "the Messiah must be 'put on' in baptism".

[Bon Voyage]

Is "must" the word that is causing the disagreement?  The "must" isn't in the bible.

[Bon Voyage]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

You are assuming folks believe this to be talking about water baptism.    Just sayin'.

[Jaime]

Okaaaaaaay............should we put on Christ...............in Baptism..........or another way? Or is there another way?

[Jaime]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

You are assuming folks believe this to be talking about water baptism.    Just sayin'.

Yes, but I realize the other point of view must assume that it does not. Hence the conundrum!

[Bon Voyage]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

You are assuming folks believe this to be talking about water baptism.    Just sayin'.

Yes, but I realize the other point of view must assume that it does not. Hence the conundrum!

Other folks would say this is not water baptism.    Emphasis on water.

[Jaime]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

You are assuming folks believe this to be talking about water baptism.    Just sayin'.

Yes, but I realize the other point of view must assume that it does not. Hence the conundrum!

Other folks would say this is not water baptism.    Emphasis on water.

I realize that. So basically this is the pivotal verse in the entire debate.

[Bon Voyage]

James, are you saying Galations 3:27 doesn't say we put on Christ at baptism?

ASV
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

CEV
Gal 3:27  And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes.

ISV
Gal 3:27  Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Message
Gal 3:27  Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe--Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

How would one describe him or herself naked of Christ?

You are assuming folks believe this to be talking about water baptism.    Just sayin'.

Yes, but I realize the other point of view must assume that it does not. Hence the conundrum!

Other folks would say this is not water baptism.    Emphasis on water.

I realize that. So basically this is the pivotal verse in the entire debate.

One among many.  If one believes that Holy Spirit baptism which happens at the point of faith is what is being referred to in this verse, than flinging Gal. 3:27 at them as a proof of water baptism isn't going to fly.  You are talking in different languages.