Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

bbyrd009 · Nov 1, 2019

gotta agree, we repent of what we want to repent of, mostly, seems like, "washing the outside of the cup"

bbyrd009 · Nov 1, 2019

Willie T said:
I'm not as Holy as some of you. I got baptized because it was what everyone in our church did also.

did you go to Luby's after too? i did lol

charity · Nov 1, 2019

Mungo said:
That repentance follows automatically after conversion is a fantasy.
It's a falsity created by your false dispensationalist doctrine that tries to pit Paul against Jesus.

Ridiculous!!

OzSpen · Nov 1, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Only a born again Christian is sanctified, so there is something wrong with the theory you've been taught according to Hebrews 10:26-31.

Is that total sanctification or progressive sanctification?

OzSpen · Nov 1, 2019

Mungo said:
It clearly says that baptism saves us.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (KJV)
Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you (RSV)
baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you (NRSV)
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.(NAB)
And this water symbolises baptism that now saves you (NIV)
also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism (YLT)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (HCSB)
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism (ASV)
Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you (GWT)
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (NKJV)
That was a type of the baptism that now saves you (CCB)
Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also (ISVNT).

If you are going into denial of what scripture clearly says there is no point in continuing.

What is an 'antitype'? You haven't answered my question yet.

Grailhunter · Nov 1, 2019

The scriptures say we should be baptized and receive communion. How could there be a disagreement?
Then again, a person that believes and is on his way to the church to be baptized dies in a car accident, he is ___________.
You guys fill in the blank. Should be interesting.

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

charity said:
Which He wrought in Christ,
when He raised Him from the dead,
and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion,
and every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under His feet,
and gave Him to be the Head
over all things to the church, which is His body,
the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.'
(Ephesians 1:20)

Praise His Holy Name!

...also in Ephesians 1, yes, indeed...

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
What is an 'antitype'? You haven't answered my question yet.

@OzSpen It's the corresponding truth in the New Testament to which the Old Testament 'types and shadows' look forward. Gloriously, Christ is in all the Scriptures.

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Martin Luther was confused.....

Hi Enoch,

I agree that he was confused on a lot of doctrine. But at least when it came to baptism he affirmed the 1,500 year teaching of Christianity which many Christian churches have fallen away from when they stopped conforming to sound doctrine: 1 Peter 3:21.

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
Is that total sanctification or progressive sanctification?

@OzSpen I think another way of expressing a distinction is between positional sanctification — as to one's position by faith in Christ in principle — and conditional sanctification — as to one's day by day following the Master.

CNKW3 · Nov 1, 2019

charity said:
'Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
There is -
one body, and
one Spirit, even as ye are called in
one hope of your calling;
One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
One God and Father of all,
Who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'
(Ephesians 4:3-6)

Hi @CNKW3,

I don't ask you to believe me: I have simply told you what I believe as a result of my own Bible study. I am a dispensationalist, and therefore take into consideration the changes in administration that take place in God's Word, in His dealings with man. I believe that the Acts period, with the epistles written during those years by Paul (1 & 2 Thessalonians,Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Hebrews and Romans) are transitional, and largely concerned with the response of Israel as a nation to the call of God by Peter in Acts 3:19-20, and the possibility of the imminent return of Christ, as promised in that address. Baptism is associated with Israel, and during that period water baptism unto repentance, and baptism of the Spirit were closely aligned.

However, when that period ended at Acts 28, with the rejection of the Jews of the diaspora of the ministry of the twelve, and of Paul (apart from the believing remnant), and their fall into consequent blindness, marked by the quotation from Isaiah 6:10, by Paul: the revelation of God concerning the mystery of the church which is the Body of Christ was revealed to Paul and administered by Him*, as it's Steward; in which water baptism has no place, but all is of the Spirit. This is markedly clear in Ephesians 4, in 'The Sevenfold Unity of The Spirit', which we are told to 'keep': of which, the 'One Baptism', which is Baptism of (and by) the Spirit, identifying the Believer with his Lord, has it's part.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

* In Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon

The book of acts ends this way...
Acts 28:30-31 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Paul was preaching “the kingdom of God”. This is what he had always preached. Act 19:8, 20:25
In Acts 20:25 he is speaking to the elders at the church in Ephesus. The same people he baptized, in water, a second time. Why did he do that? Because water baptism is a part of the “preaching the kingdom of God”. Read acts 8...
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
When Philip preached the kingdom those in Samaria were baptized.
When Paul preached the kingdom those in Ephesus were baptized.
In acts 20 after Paul told those in Ephesus that he had preached to them “the kingdom of God”. He then told them....”I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL THE COUNSEL OF GOD”. Well, did he or did he not. According to you he left something out.
Also
Those in Ephesus DID NOT receive the Spirit through the baptism of the HS. They received the Spirit through the laying on of Paul’s hands. Acts 19
So, There is no way Paul wrote to these people and told them that the “one baptism” was Spirit baptism because they didn’t even receive Spirit baptism. If they did then show it to me. It’s absurd to think that those in Ephesus received “Spirit baptism” but then had to have hands laid on them in order to receive the Spirit. I know these facts won’t phase you because you’re like the rest of the people on this board. Facts don’t matter.

101G · Nov 1, 2019

Addressing the OP only. why not ask yourself, first, if Baptism is an ordinance or a command from God to obey? second, see if God, not man, but see if God ended his command for us not to be water baptize anymore. when one find those answers then one will know that Baptism is or is not necessary for salvation.
PICJAG.

Mungo · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
What is an 'antitype'? You haven't answered my question yet.

farouk has answered this now.
But did you also want to know how baptism (with water) is the anti-type?

Mungo · Nov 1, 2019

Grailhunter said:
The scriptures say we should be baptized and receive communion. How could there be a disagreement?
Then again, a person that believes and is on his way to the church to be baptized dies in a car accident, he is ___________.
You guys fill in the blank. Should be interesting.

Unlucky?

The Cathiolic viewpoints is that God is judst - not a legalist.
Baptism is normative - what we should do under normal circumstances. But there are always extreme circumstances where someone desires to be baptised but is unable to be baptised - such as being killed on their way there, or indeed the thief on the cross. We believe God applies the fruits of baptism that person even though they could not actually be sacramentally baptised.

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

Mungo said:
farouk has answered this now.
But did you also want to know how baptism (with water) is the anti-type?

It's about the answer of a good conscience; as a dispensationalist, I don't see the church as a continuation of Israel; I think Pentecost profoundly alters the sense in which Old Testament practices are viewed.

Mungo · Nov 1, 2019

farouk said:
It's about the answer of a good conscience; as a dispensationalist, I don't see the church as a continuation of Israel; I think Pentecost profoundly alters the sense in which Old Testament practices are viewed.

I think dispensationalism is wrong but I don't see the relevance to this issue.

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

Mungo said:
I think dispensationalism is wrong but I don't see the relevance to this issue.

Oh I do; the underlying question is, how far does one try to bring over into the New Testament what belongs firmly to the Old. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a case in point; a most glorious Epistle.

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
charity,

Excellent topic. Since the thief on the cross went straight to be with Jesus in Paradise at death (without baptism) was he a saved or unsaved person in Paradise? (see Luke 23:43).

As for Mark 16:16, it is doubtful if it should be in the NT as Mk 16:9-20 is not included in some of the earliest manuscripts. In fact, Mk 16:9-20 contains heretical doctrines:

'If they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be hurt' (Mk 16:18 ERV).

There are snake-handling churches in the USA.
A snake-handling Pentecostal pastor died from a snake bite.

Since this passage about snakes and drinking poison are not in the earliest MSS of the NT, it seems to me it was added later by copyists as it was among traditions being passed around. I have examined this passage in, Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?

As for John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 (especially) being used to support baptismal regeneration, each of these passages requires some exegesis and contextual interpretation.

Oz

Hi OZ,

You mentioned something fascinating. That Mark 16:9-20 are not included in some of the earliest manuscripts. I have read that out of 620 manuscripts that contain Mark, only two omit the last 12 verses. The Alexandrian Manuscript itself, considered one of the three best manuscripts, includes it. Mark 16:9–20 is in all the ancient translations and versions. It was quoted before ad 200, which is more than a century before the famous manuscripts left it out. (The Vaticanus dates to ad 300–325; the Sinaitus to ad 330–360.) Irenaeus of Lyons, who is said to have known John personally, quoted Mark 16:19 around ad 170, saying “But Mark in the end of his gospel says, ‘And the Lord Jesus, after that He had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.’” Other early writers who cited these verses as Scripture include Papias, 130, Justin Martyr, 160; Tatian, 172; Tertullian, 220; Aphraates, 367; and Didymus, 398.

From where do you get your information?

Bible study Mary

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
farouk,

‘Born of water and the Spirit’ (John 3:5). What does it mean? If we look in the context, could we get a hint? ‘Flesh gives birth to the flesh’ (v 6) could point to water as physical birth vs spiritual birth. The meaning of the phrase has generated lots of possible meanings, such as:

It describes two births, physical vs spiritual birth. But there are no ancient sources that present the view that natural birth is from water. But the context is talking about one birth, ‘from above’, ‘born again’.

Some think ‘water’ refers to Christian baptism. Such a view would not be relevant to Nicodemus (see John 3:10 and Jesus’ taking the Jews to task that they didn’t know what he was talking about). There is the added problem that baptismal regeneration (necessity of baptism for salvation) is not taught elsewhere in the NT – except in the non-canonical Mark 16:16). There is no believe + baptism to be saved. John 3:16 is clear: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’. So here in John 3, we have confirmation that salvation is available to ‘whoever believes in [Jesus]’ and they ‘shall not perish but have eternal life’. It does not state that salvation is for those who believe and are baptised.

Some want this ‘water’ to refer to John the Baptist’s baptism, a baptism of repentance.

‘Jesus is arguing against the ritual washings of the Essenes’ – a conservative group that promoted rituals. This is the group associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The most satisfactory conclusion, in my view, is that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ is influenced by three factors: (1) It is a parallel meaning to ‘born from above’ and so only one birth is in view – the born again, new birth. (2) A unity of water-spirit; (3) Jesus criticises Nicodemus (in 3:10) for not understanding these things, especially since he was ‘Israel’s teacher’. Note, Ezekiel 36:25-27. Nicodemus should have known this Scripture that demonstrates cleansing from impurity and transformation of the heart.

Therefore, ‘born of water and spirit’ (drop the capital S) points to ‘a new begetting, a new birth that cleanses and renews, the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets’ (Carson 1991:195; many of the above points are based on Carson 1991:191-195).

Oz

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hi Oz,

Why do you believe Carson, in the work that you cited, was right and 2,000 years of Christian teaching wrong on this matter?

Curious Mary

Enoch111 · Nov 1, 2019

Marymog said:
Why do you believe Carson, in the work that you cited, was right and 2,000 years of Christian teaching wrong on this matter?

Almost 2000 years of errors does not make them right.

Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

Groper

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads