Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

CharismaticLady · Nov 1, 2019

OzSpen said:
Is that total sanctification or progressive sanctification?

I believe total. We are set apart once we are cleansed of all sin. 1 John 1:9 There is a maturing needed, but it is not for overcoming sin as is the common unscriptural teaching for progressive sanctification. It is for maturing in the divine nature to become more and more like Christ.

2 Peter 1:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. (not the erroneous teaching of "past, present and future" sins.)

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Nondenom40 · Nov 1, 2019

Marymog said:
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

John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism. If that is necessary for salvation then all the o.t saints are toast. Salvation is by believing in Jesus as your savior, not being sprinkled with H2O.

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Almost 2000 years of errors does not make them right.

Hi Enoch,

If the CC has been in error for 2,000 then that means the Protestant Churches have been in error for 500 years since they adhere/practice/preach some of the same doctrines (errors as you call them).

Sooooo since you know what the errors are in the CC teachings why should we go to anyone else for sound doctrine?

Curious Mary

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Nondenom40 said:
John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism. If that is necessary for salvation then all the o.t saints are toast. Salvation is by believing in Jesus as your savior, not being sprinkled with H2O.

So says you. For 2,000 years it has been taught by the earliest Christians that it does have to do with water baptism:

Church Fathers on John 3.5 - Unsettled Christianity

Can you show me any 1st or 2nd century writings that show otherwise?

I accept the 2,000 year teaching of The Church. Who's teaching do you accept?

Historical Mary

PS: 1 Peter 3:21 disagrees with you

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

charity said:
Ridiculous!!

I had to smile, too...

Steve Owen · Nov 1, 2019

Marymog said:
So says you. For 2,000 years it has been taught by the earliest Christians that it does have to do with water baptism:

Church Fathers on John 3.5 - Unsettled Christianity

Can you show me any 1st or 2nd century writings that show otherwise?

I accept the 2,000 year teaching of The Church. Who's teaching do you accept?

Historical Mary

PS: 1 Peter 3:21 disagrees with you

The Didachi which is the earliest non-biblical writing on baptism that has come down to us, knows nothing about baptismal regeneration or infant 'baptism.' However, the Bible should be our only point of reference. Paul forewarned that the apostasy would occur almost immediately after his passing (Acts of the Apostles 20:28-31).

Steve Owen · Nov 1, 2019

A while ago I wrote a series of articles on the subject of the New Birth. I offer them here in case anyone might find them helpful.

The New Birth (1) – Introduction: ‘You must be Born Again.’

The New Birth (2) – The Necessity of being Born Again

The New Birth (3). The Source of the New Birth

The New Birth (4) Its Nature

The New Birth (5). The Way of the Wind

The New Birth (6). Paedofaith and Presumptive Regeneration

New Birth (7) The Order of the New Birth

New Birth (8). The Results of the New Birth.

New Birth (9). Evidences of the New Birth

The New Birth (10) Its Propagation

farouk · Nov 1, 2019

Steve Owen said:
The Didachi which is the earliest non-biblical writing on baptism that has come down to us, knows nothing about baptismal regeneration or infant 'baptism.' However, the Bible should be our only point of reference. Paul forewarned that the apostasy would occur almost immediately after his passing (Acts of the Apostles 20:28-31).

Acts 2.41 shows indeed that people were baptized because they believed; there were definitely not baptized in order supposedly to become believers.

charity · Nov 1, 2019

CNKW3 said:
I know these facts won’t phase you because you’re like the rest of the people on this board. Facts don’t matter.

Hello @CNLW3,

I am sorry that you should have such a low opinion of your fellow members on the forum, including myself. I would love to address the points you have raised, but with an opinion such as that, there seems little point.

You and I have a Bible, and the Holy Spirit who takes of the things of Christ and makes them ours. I will let Him be the arbiter on this.

With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Steve Owen said:
The Didachi which is the earliest non-biblical writing on baptism that has come down to us, knows nothing about baptismal regeneration or infant 'baptism.' However, the Bible should be our only point of reference. Paul forewarned that the apostasy would occur almost immediately after his passing (Acts of the Apostles 20:28-31).

Hi Steve,

It is true that the Didache says nothing about baptismal regeneration or infant baptism. The Didache isn't the final authority on the matter soooo I don't know what your point is. There are other early Christian writings that do speak of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. Why do you disregard those?

Jesus does say Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14) and Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and Scripture talks about baptizing entire households soooooo infants are part of households and they are part of all nations and Jesus said he wants them to come to him soooooo I am not sure what your point is?

The bible should be our only point of reference according to WHO's interpretation? Yours? The Catholic Churches? The Baptists? It still has to be properly interpreted. Who's interpretation do you accept?

Mary

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Steve Owen said:
A while ago I wrote a series of articles on the subject of the New Birth. I offer them here in case anyone might find them helpful.

The New Birth (1) – Introduction: ‘You must be Born Again.’

The New Birth (2) – The Necessity of being Born Again

The New Birth (3). The Source of the New Birth

The New Birth (4) Its Nature

The New Birth (5). The Way of the Wind

The New Birth (6). Paedofaith and Presumptive Regeneration

New Birth (7) The Order of the New Birth

New Birth (8). The Results of the New Birth.

New Birth (9). Evidences of the New Birth

The New Birth (10) Its Propagation

Steve,

Soooooo I should believe what you write on the matter of baptism but not what the Apostolic and Church Fathers wrote about it?

Curious Mary

Mungo · Nov 1, 2019

Steve Owen said:
However, the Bible should be our only point of reference.

If the Bible is to be our only point of reference then several questions arise:
1. Where does it say that in the Bible?
2. How did people know the truth before the Bible was compiled?
3. How could people know what the Bible consisted of since the Bible doesn't contain a list?

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

farouk said:
Acts 2.41 shows indeed that people were baptized because they believed; there were definitely not baptized in order supposedly to become believers.

Hi Farouk,

Scripture says entire households were baptized. Were infants, who do not have the ability to believe, and adolescent children, who didn't have the capacity to believe, part of entire households?

Some of the earliest Christian historical writings we have is that infants were baptized. As a matter of fact the debate was should they be baptized before the 8th day after birth. Were they baptized because they believed?

When did the notion that infants shouldn't be baptized begin?

Mary

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Steve Owen said:
The Didachi which is the earliest non-biblical writing on baptism that has come down to us, knows nothing about baptismal regeneration or infant 'baptism.' However, the Bible should be our only point of reference. Paul forewarned that the apostasy would occur almost immediately after his passing (Acts of the Apostles 20:28-31).

Hi Steve,

Using the bible as your only point of reference please tell me which passage in your bible tells us what should be in the bible?

Patient Mary

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Nondenom40 said:
John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism. If that is necessary for salvation then all the o.t saints are toast. Salvation is by believing in Jesus as your savior, not being sprinkled with H2O.

The OT saints were not under the new law brought forth by Him.

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Willie T said:
I'm sorry, but I see reading, "in the name of...", here, the same way I see it when Jesus said, "Whatever you ask in my name...."

Of course some people have actually taken that latter one to mean that a prayer to Jesus is not "official" if we don't verbally utter the exact words "...in Jesus' name, Amen."

I didn't choose to follow Jesus in the hopes that He would simply give me an alternative set of rules and procedures from those that the Jews happen to have.

Hi Willie,

So using your theory when one is baptized could the baptizer say "I baptize you Father, Son Holy Spirit"?

Curious Mary

Nondenom40 · Nov 1, 2019

Marymog said:
The OT saints were not under the new law brought forth by Him.

So there are two plans of salvation? Didn't know that. Can you spell out for us what those in the o.t. needed to do for salvation and how the n.t. is different?

Marymog · Nov 1, 2019

Nondenom40 said:
So there are two plans of salvation? Didn't know that. Can you spell out for us what those in the o.t. needed to do for salvation and how the n.t. is different?

The OT saints did not have Him. We do!

Grailhunter · Nov 1, 2019

Mungo said:
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.

Unlucky lol love that! You are right.
I think sometimes people forget that all things have not been decided when it comes time for us to stand before Christ.
The other thing some forget is that, the Gospels....He died. The situation so serious that a God had to be nailed to a cross. A desire so strong that He was willing to go through the horrors of the passion to make sure the plan was successful. He had a plan designed to succeed. Now when Christ is sitting on the judgment seat, is He going to work against Himself? He died for success. Success to save us even as we were yet sinners.

CharismaticLady · Nov 1, 2019

Deborah_ said:
Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

No... and Yes

The problem with both these answers is that the question assumes that baptism is a tick-box activity. Has it been done... or not? And it isn't as simple as that.

I could answer No - on the grounds that we are saved by God's grace, through faith, and not by anything that we do (Ephesians 2:8,9). The thief who professed faith in Jesus while being crucified was not excluded from Paradise on the grounds that he had no baptismal certificate!

But in the other hand, the answer should be Yes - because in Acts baptism is always presented as being compulsory. Peter tells the crowd on the Day of Pentecost that in order to be forgiven they must repent and be baptised (Acts 2:38). Ananias told Saul to have his sins washed away through baptism (Acts 22:16). And Cornelius and his family, despite having already been filled with the Spirit, are expected to be baptised as well! (Acts 10:44-48)

The passage at the very end of Mark's Gospel sums it up: "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16) If you genuinely believe, you will be baptised; if you don't believe, baptism is irrelevant. The New Testament assumes that if you are a believer, you will be baptised; because baptism was normally carried out at the time of conversion, there was no such thing as an unbaptised believer!

What has happened since the New Testament era is that the (baptismal) waters have become muddied. Few if any churches now tell people to get baptised at the time they are converted; they are either baptised as babies (long before they have any faith of their own) or told to wait until they have grown in the faith a bit, or (worst of all) encouraged to regard baptism as optional!

Baptism isn't optional - not because it contributes anything to our salvation in and of itself (I Peter 3:21), but because if I disobey Christ in this very simple matter, how can I possibly claim to be His disciple?

Where does it say the thief on the cross wasn't baptized? That assumption has been around a long time out of silence, but he had so much knowledge about Christ and His future kingdom, even while Jesus was dying, and he seemed to believe even more than the apostles, so how can anyone say it didn't play out like this: he had been a thief, got saved and baptized, and surrendered for his crimes he had committed before? If we are going to make assumptions on silence, I like mine better and it makes more sense seeing as Jesus wasn't preaching while on the cross. So how did he know more than the apostles who seemed to believe the crucifixion was the end? It took them seeing Jesus after the resurrection to get a clue!

Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

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

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

Similar threads