Must I be baptized to be saved?

Baptism And The Law Of The Excluded Middle by Tom Wacaster A major point of contention between the Lord's church and virtually every false system of religion that falls under the broad, man-made umbrella of "Christendom," has to do with the role that baptism plays in God's plan for man's salvation. I have had two debates with denominational preachers, and I can attest that the adamancy with which they attack such passages as Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, is a manifestation of their hatred for the truth and denial of one of simplest commands given to those desiring to become children of God. It may seem harsh to accuse someone of hating the truth simply because he does not believe, teach, or practice the Biblical position on baptism, but when men ridicule the God given command, they hate the truth. Or, to put it another way, "because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved" (2 Thess. 2:10). The "law of the excluded middle" is a law in logic that says a thing either is, or is not. It exhausts the possibilities. For example, were I to point to an object and say that the object is either wood or non-wood, I have exhausted the possibilities. Both statements cannot be true, nor can both be false. The value of using "the law of the excluded middle" is such that if you prove one side of the two-side equation to be false, you at the same time have proven the other to be true, and visa versa. Prove that an object is wood, and it is not non-wood: it would not be plastic, steal, concrete, et al. With that we are ready to apply the "law of the excluded middle" to the goal of learning the truth about the essentiality of baptism. While there is sufficient scripture to prove the essentiality of baptism for remission of past sins, I will take a different approach and "go in through the back door" so to speak. The "law of the excluded middle" demands that baptism is either for remission of past sins, or it is not for remission of past sins. That statement exhausts the possibilities, does it not? Both positions cannot, at one and the same time, be true, nor can both statements, at one and the same time, be false. Those who deny its essentiality have taken the later position, and thus it is their burden to prove their position. They have, however, taken upon themselves an impossible task for the simple reason that their position leads to an absurdity and/or contradiction; in fact it leads to several absurdities and/or contradictions. Let's pursue this a little further. First, it leads to the absurdity that one can be in Christ and out of Christ at the same time. It is obvious that all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). Forgiveness of past sins is a spiritual blessing. Therefore, forgiveness of sins is located only in Christ, a spiritual state acquired prior to baptism as per the argument of those who advocate that baptism is not for remission of sins. But it is also true that baptism puts one into Christ as per Romans 6:3-5. Therefore, those who believe that baptism is not for remission of past sins must conclude that one is in Christ prior to baptism, but out of Christ at the same time because he has not yet been baptized into Christ. Second, it leads to the absurdity that one has been raised from spiritual death to walk in newness of life prior to having been raised to walk in newness of life. In Romans 6:4 Paul wrote: "We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." The argument is same as above. Those who believe, embrace and/or teach the doctrine that baptism is not for remission of sins must believe they have already been raised to newness of life prior to burial in the grave. But since we are "buried...through baptism..so we also might walk in newness of life," then accepting the doctrine that remission of sins comes prior to baptism place themselves in the unenviable position of believing an absurdity: that they are, at one and the same time, walking in newness of life and are not walking in newness of life. By the same line of reasoning we could show that those who believe that baptism is not for remission of sins imply that they have been saved while at the same time not being saved, they have been translated into the body of Christ while not being in the body of Christ, etc. Now, let us return to the use of the "law of the excluded middle" and show the force of our reasoning. Since it is true that the "law of the excluded middle" does not allow something to have and at the same time not have the same qualities, we can only conclude that if someone believes he is in Christ while at the same time believing he is not in Christ, he has violated the "law of the excluded middle." If a person believes he is walking in newness of life and at the same time not walking in newness of life, he has violated "the law of the excluded middle." Cannot you not see the absurd position they place themselves in? Is it not much easier to simply believe and obey the Lord's words: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? Indeed it is!