If we are saved by faith alone (despite James 2:24), why did Jesus teach all those other requirements?

That baptism, with belief, is required for salvation. (Mark 16:16) That the purpose of baptism is forgiveness of sins: "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ INTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN..." (Acts 2:38, direct translation from Greek) In 1 Peter, the apostle compared the water of baptism to the water of the flood. He pointed out that eight people were saved by water during the flood.

While the ark saved them from the flood, the water of the flood saved them from the sins of the world. Peter compared this to water baptism, which he said, NOW SAVES US. These verses all state that baptism is necessary for salvation.

There is no verse about water baptism that says it is not necessary for salvation. So you can ignore those who claim it isn't essential. They have to ignore a lot of scripture to reach that conclusion.

Water baptism is a separate experience from receiving the Holy Spirit. Notice in Acts 2:38 that Peter told the crowd to repent, be baptized (in water) in Jesus' name for forgiveness of sins, and that THEN they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8, the Samaritans believed Philip's preaching of the word, repented and were baptized in Jesus' name.

When Peter and John arrived later and laid hands on them, it was then that they received the Spirit. In Acts 10, Peter was preaching to Gentiles. They believed his message, and were filled with the Spirit.

When Peter saw that they had received the Spirit (he heard them speaking in tongues), he commanded them to be baptized in water in Jesus' name. In Acts 19, disciples of John the Baptist, knowing only John's baptism, learned about Jesus and believed. They were re-baptized in Jesus' name, and then afterward, received the Spirit.

It is clear from Apostolic practice of the first century that the church taught only one plan of salvation. We see this plan in its entirety in the book of Acts, because this is where it was being used. (The epistles were written to people who were already saved; they didn't need to have the plan of salvation taught to them.

This is why looking for instructions on how to be saved in the epistles is wrong. The Gospels are also the wrong place to look, because the New Testament did not go into effect until after the Testator, Jesus, died. Those who lived and died in the Gospels lived and died under the Law of Moses.

That's why using the thief on the cross as an example is irrelevant to us: He didn't live in the church age. Baptism in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Spirit weren't even available during his lifetime.) The book of Acts records the beginning of the church: Acts 2, one hundred twenty received the Spirit, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. (This was NOT the gift of tongues.

Not everyone receives that gift, and when someone does have it, only one at a time may speak, only two or three per gathering, and there must be an interpretation. What we see recorded in Acts chapters 2, 10 and 10 when people received the Spirit and spoke in tongues doesn't follow those rules. This kind of tongues is simply a sign, or evidence, that is given to everyone who receives the Spirit.

1 Cor. 12:7) When a crowd of thousands believed Peter's message about Jesus, and asked what they needed to do, what Peter didn't tell them is as important as what he did tell them. He did NOT tell them to recite a sinner's prayer, or to "accept Jesus" or to just believe.

In fact, they ALREADY believed, or they wouldn't have asked the question. Nor did Peter tell them they were already saved because they believed. He told them to repent, be baptized (by immersion, which is what baptize means) in the name of Jesus so their sins would be forgiven, and that they would receive the Holy Spirit.

This plan was followed throughout the book of Acts, and no one has the right to change it. (Gal. 1:8-9) Even the Philippian jailor, who was told to believe in the Lord Jesus, was baptized, he and his family, in the middle of the night by Paul & Silas, both of whom were in pain, having been beaten, and tired because of the late hour.

Were baptism not essential, surely it could have waited until daylight, or until the next church service. Why baptize all of them in the middle of the night? The reason is clear: baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and without forgiveness of sins, there is no salvation.

Is baptism a work? What if it is? Faith without works is dead.

Dead faith saves no one. James said so. He challenged those who had faith without works to show him their faith without works.

He said he would show his faith BY his works. By works is faith made perfect (or complete). Edit: For those who say that baptism is a sign/symbol, please show me any verse that says that.

For those who say it isn't necessary: Peter said it was for forgiveness of sin. Paul was told to be baptized to wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16) Can we be saved without being forgiven?

Well, everyone agrees that baptism is a work. The question is, whose work is it? If it's man's work, as Baptists and other evangelical churches say, then of course it would not contribute to salvation.

But if it's God's work, then that's quite another matter. Remember, you can't baptize yourself, and there's a good reason for that. Since baptism is a means of grace, it must be done by someone else, since you can't bring God's grace upon yourself.

Salvation is God's work, administered through the hands of another person. The 1 Peter passage is an interesting one. Some people will claim that this supports the view that baptism is something we do to show that we're Christians.

They point to verse 21 and say that since it's not the removal of dirt, it can't be that our sins are being washed away by water--but rather, it's us answering God's call - "the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." (NIV) The problem with this is that since the same passage says that baptism saves you, if it were talking about the pledge of *your* conscience toward God, then it would be works-salvation. So it can't mean that. But for the first 1500 years of Church history, this was understood to refer to *Jesus'* clear conscience.

When you are baptized, you are united with the baptism of Jesus Himself. In Jesus' baptism, *He* was the one who had a clear conscience: *He* was the one making the pledge to God. His baptism, which is our baptism, saves us.

It is one baptism. Here's a cool illustration: Have you ever put a slice of bread in a container of cookies? The bread releases all its moisture, and the cookies get really soft.

Baptism is a little bit like that: In baptism, Jesus releases His righteousness, and it flows into those of us who are baptized. But another process happens in the same baptism: Our sin is released, and absorbed into Him. That is sometimes called the Great Exchange, and for us it means salvation, since Jesus paid for all that sin on the cross.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.