Is Water Baptism needed for Salvation? The Bible says no.

[Ambassador4Christ]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

—James 1:22

Please try to understand:

James 1
1   James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Jabez]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

—James 1:22
 So we should ignore this?

[Ambassador4Christ]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

—James 1:22
 So we should ignore this?

You do a good job of ignoring this:

Ephesians 4:5 There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Despite this truth many preachers and teachers insist on a multiplicity of baptisms. This insistence constitutes a slap in the face of God for it demeans the operation of God (Colossians 2:12) as being insufficient. We are baptized by God the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) and no ritual of man (though borrowed from God's earlier Hebrew program) can add anything to that.
There are some that would preach THREE baptisms, some TWO and some ONE for the current Church age.

Some would sprinkle, some pour. Some would immerse two times forward, once backward. Some baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while others do so in the name of Jesus only. Some baptize infants and others would baptize adults only. Some will say that you are not saved unless water baptized while others say that baptism is a testimony only. How sad! What a blessing it is to understand that Paul's commission did not include the Hebrew water rite of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17). How reassuring it is to know that we are "complete" in Christ and that man can add nothing to our position in Christ nor take away any of our spiritual blessings "in heavenly places in Christ."

[Jabez]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

—James 1:22
So we should ignore this?

Yes or NO?

[Ambassador4Christ]

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

—James 1:22
So we should ignore this?

Yes or NO?

You do a good job of ignoring this:

Ephesians 4:5 There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Despite this truth many preachers and teachers insist on a multiplicity of baptisms. This insistence constitutes a slap in the face of God for it demeans the operation of God (Colossians 2:12) as being insufficient. We are baptized by God the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) and no ritual of man (though borrowed from God's earlier Hebrew program) can add anything to that.
There are some that would preach THREE baptisms, some TWO and some ONE for the current Church age.

Some would sprinkle, some pour. Some would immerse two times forward, once backward. Some baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while others do so in the name of Jesus only. Some baptize infants and others would baptize adults only. Some will say that you are not saved unless water baptized while others say that baptism is a testimony only. How sad! What a blessing it is to understand that Paul's commission did not include the Hebrew water rite of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17). How reassuring it is to know that we are "complete" in Christ and that man can add nothing to our position in Christ nor take away any of our spiritual blessings "in heavenly places in Christ."

Do You Yes or No?

[Ambassador4Christ]

The Epistle of James is designed to help the Jew determine who is the true believer. It is written to the whole nation of Israel not just the remnant.

There will be three groups of people:

The rich - the Scribes and Pharisees (those who follow the Antichrist)
The poor - the remnant
Those in-between (these need to decide with whom they will associate) - the nation as a whole.
The temptation the remnant will face will be of a particular kind, it will not be the things that we think of when we think of being tempted today with such things as sex, drugs and alcohol, etc. The remnant believers will face the temptation to be drawn back to the apostate doctrine, back to the traditions of their fathers, the old way of worship. This is a temptation because the old is done with in God's eyes and the new has come.

Because of the religious system of that day it will appear that those who are rich are being blessed but in reality, those who follow the old system, which is under the influence of the Antichrist, will be the ones that are able to buy and sell. The poor will be those believers who have chosen not to take the mark of the beast.

When James writes about faith without works in chapter two, he writes that these works are to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. During the Tribulation period, those who do not receive the mark of the beast will not be able to buy food or clothing and if one sees another in need and has the means to help the other person then one is to show his faith by helping out the other believer.

During the Tribulation, the rich will  tell the Jews  that Jesus is not the Messiah and the reason "the remnant" is poor is because they believed that Jesus is the Messiah and He is not. The nation of Israel will need to choose which group to associate with, the rich or the poor, the Antichrist or Christ.

They are told to ask for wisdom so that they will be able to identify the true word of God. James is writing to the remnant believer to equip them to be able to endure and withstand the temptation they will face during the Tribulation, which is the next thing to happen according to the prophetic timetable.

"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James 5:8 KJV)

[Jabez]

James 1:19

Iam looking over your point and i have a open mind.Now can you please answer my qeustion with a simple yes or no to james 1:22

[Ambassador4Christ]

James 1:19

Iam looking over your point and i have a open mind.Now can you please answer my qeustion with a simple yes or no to james 1:22

James 1:1 is my answer

[Jabez]

Ok i accept that.Oh ya one thing.Do we need Baptism?

[Ambassador4Christ]

Ok i accept that.Oh ya one thing.Do we need Baptism?

 The Body Church of this dispensation is separate and distinct from Israel and the messianic Kingdom. And the Church which is called Christ's Body was not made known until it was revealed to and through Paul.In Paul's epistles it is revealed that all who now believe the Gospel that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). None of the 12 Apostles ever said that!

Further, Paul states that there is One Baptism for the Church today  (Eph.4:5). This could not be both water and Spirit baptism; for that would be two baptisms. Neither could it be water , because Paul makes it plain that it is by means of Spirit baptism that we are made members of His Body. To make it water would be to rule out the only means of becoming a member of that Body. Hence, the One baptism for the Body of Christ is Spirit baptism.

It is indeed, the One baptism of the Spirit which identifies the believer with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Rom. 6:3-6). Paul refers to this truth in this passage to show the inconsistency of one who had been baptized into Christ continuing to live in sin. To be baptized into Christ, (and only the Spirit can do that) means to be baptized into His death, and one who has died is freed from sin. Jon, you rightly noted that Paul did indeed baptize a few with water.

Yes, Paul did practice some water baptism in his early ministry, however ,there is no indication that he ever baptized for the remission of sins as did the Twelve at Pentecost. If his (Paul's) baptizing had had such significance he would never have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, and that he thanked God he had baptized so few.

It is evident from Paul's epistles that the Holy Spirit was imparted and salvation was received completely apart from water baptism. You will note that besides baptism, Paul did many other things in his early ministry in the Acts period which were associated with the dispensation under which he was saved (dispensation of Israel) and from which he emerged as the dispenser of revelation for this new dispensation of Grace (Eph. 3:1-9).

[Jabez]

Therefore, water baptism is not an act of salvation, but an act of obedience.Can we agree?

[Ambassador4Christ]

Therefore, water baptism is not an act of salvation, but an act of obedience.Can we agree?

NO!

[Ambassador4Christ]

Was Paul sent to Baptize?

Every one of the twelve had to emphatically confess, "Christ sent me to baptize". But, Paul just as emphatically declared: "Christ sent me not to baptize". Now, is there any difference in these two statements? Those who water baptize say that there is not one bid of difference! Well, what do words mean then? Was Paul lying? Didn't Paul say what he meant to say? Why do men have to twist his words? Some say , that Paul's main business was preaching the gospel and that he delegated the less important work of baptizing converts to others.

But I choose to believe Paul when he said, "Christ sent me not to baptize." Why then, should I be called a heretic when I commit no sin other than to take the words of the great apostle Paul and tell the world that "Christ sent me not to baptize."?

If water baptism is indeed an act of obedience to Christ; if it is one of the ordinances of the church; if it is a sacramental means of grace whereby we receive forgiveness; if it is the divinely appointed means of confessing Christ to the world; if it is our burial with Christ; if it is the answer of a good conscience toward God; how can we understand Paul's light treatment of it? If water baptism was necessary; if it accomplished anything; if it was a basis for Christian fellowship, how could Paul in any sense of the word say: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius. (1Cor. 1:14). Listen, if water baptism is any of these things that men and tradition claim for it, is it not strange that we do not find even one world of positive instruction in all of Paul's epistles for its observance? Paul gives us definite instruction concerning the observance of the Lord's

Table and is careful to state that he received this truth by revelation from the Lord. There were more sins and trouble at Corinth over the wrong observance of the Lord's Table that were caused by baptism, but Paul didn't therefore thank God that he had not given them the Lord's Table, nor did he state, "Christ sent me not to observe the Lord's Table. The argument from silence is a strong one, and I think there is no valid reason for practicing water baptism in this new grace dispensation.

Paul gives no command to water baptize in any of his epistles. But not only does Paul omit any command to water baptize in any of his epistles, he clearly states exactly the opposite--- "Christ sent me not to baptize." Hence, if you choose to water baptize, don't fault the liberals and spiritualizers who choose to make any other part of the Bible to mean something different from what it says.

If we fail to recognize the transitional character of the book of Acts we will never understand Paul's practice of water baptism , nor many other things---circumcision, vows, animal sacrifices, tongues, miracles, etc. of his early ministry. You see, Paul was saved during the Pentecostal administration of the gospel of the Kingdom, and Ananias was sent to him with the same message as was presented to any Jewish believer of that day, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). It was out of this dispensational situation that Paul emerged into the new dispensation which God committed to him.

This emergence was not a sudden one, but it was gradual, covering a period of about 25 years. As Paul progressively received more and more revelation of God's purpose and program in this present dispensation of grace (Acts 26:16; 2 Cor. 12:1), he came to realize the significance of the omission of water baptism from his commission and the abiding reality of the One Baptism of (Eph. 4:5.)

By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he had no doubt realized these things fully and clearly, even to the extent that he could thank God that he had baptized none there, save a very few. People talk about unity today, but baptism is one of the most divisive issues of all however, I believe that the only basis for real unity, is God's truth for this dispensation of grace concerning the One Baptism of that distinctive body truth which we find only in Paul's epistles. Nothing less than the real baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ can unify Christendom.

Believers need to understand that water baptism is scriptural; it just needs to be placed in the right dispensation, and then all becomes clear. Only confusion and disunity results from trying to place things into the wrong dispensation.

Thus, once again, dispensational Bible study comes to the rescue and shows us how and why things are the way they are. It is only when you fail to study from the dispensational viewpoint that things become confusing and get out of hand.

[Jabez]

I dont know where you stand.So i assume your are against water baptism?How about Baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT?Please explain?

**As to the topic i feel the answer is no.**

[Ambassador4Christ]

I dont know where you stand.So i assume your are against water baptism?How about Baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT?Please explain?

**As to the topic i feel the answer is no.**

You should atleast read my many posts, I believe in "ONE" Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). You read that book Jabez, and you seem to understand it, why are you having problems with the messages I post. THINK ABOUT IT

Have A GRRRRRREAT Day