Is water baptism necessary for salvation?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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 kingdom, he seemed to believe even more than the apostles, so how can anyone say he had been a thief, got saved, 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.

lol I like it. When you are next to Christ and he says that today you are going to be in paradise, odds are good He has you covered.
I use to ride to the base with my lieutenant and XO....the good thing....I could never be late!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharismaticLady

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Sooooo since you know what the errors are in the CC teachings why should we go to anyone else for sound doctrine?
Because all Christians should stick to the Five Solas, including the CC. You can't go wrong on that basis.
 

historyb

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2011
2,990
2,701
113
52
in a house
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In another thread, the subject of water baptism has intervened into the subject of the thread, and threatens to divert (The Hope Of The World). This subject can be a contentious one, but I hope it can be approached with love on all sides.

On the side of the necessity for water baptism for salvation, certain verses were quoted in that thread by a participant, which could provide a starting point.

John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21


Hi,

Coming late here I see with all the replies. :) Yes Baptism is required for Salvation and the universal Church use to believe this then the Reformation happened and people thought they could decide for themselves. So what they did was make their own version of Christianity where they decided what salvation was and was not like to follow the Bible only, Baptism was not required, and various myriad of things. In real Christianity baptism is necessary for Salvation.

One might have how about the guy on the cross with Christ, he was not Baptized. He had the Baptism of desire, if he could of he would. The normative way to salvation is belief and baptism.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yes Baptism is required for Salvation and the universal Church use to believe this then the Reformation happened and people thought they could decide for themselves. So what they did was make their own version of Christianity where they decided what salvation was and was not like to follow the Bible only, Baptism was not required, and various myriad of things. In real Christianity baptism is necessary for Salvation
That should say "In FALSE Christianity baptism is necessary for salvation".

Just one chapter in Romans (chapter 10) refutes this false teaching.
Romans 10 is the Word of God, as is all Scripture. So let's stick to the Bible, and we will note that "water" in John 3:5 is a metaphor for the Gospel (the Word of God), which is also the incorruptible seed of the New Birth (1 Peter 1:23-25).

ROMANS 10 (KJV) -- NO MENTION OF BAPTISM
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of Peace, and bring Glad Tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

And this is exactly what Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30,31: And [the jailer] brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Owen

historyb

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2011
2,990
2,701
113
52
in a house
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That should say "In FALSE Christianity baptism is necessary for salvation".

In false Christianity such as much on this forum and your brand which is anything but Christianity and quite a lie and not Christian at all says no Baptism. In real Christianity St. Peter has said "Repent and be baptized" when asked what to do to be saved. Pagan religions, such as yours, hate the truth
 

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,275
3,091
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Similarly in the Body of Christ, Jesus, the Head of it may be the boss, but are there in the end of the matter going to be any other Heads or bosses... like second line supervisors?

Its funny you used the term 'bosses' which to me carries negative overtones.
The problem of course lies in how we perceive and excerise authority.

If our brother has been given authority over us do we envy his position? Do we look for excuses to reject or disobey that authority?
Are we truly willing to submit to our brethren? Do we rejoice for and with them when they are called to serve?

If we have been given authority over another, do we exercise it in service to them or do we abuse our positon to serve ourselves?

I won't pressume to guess how the Lord will use us in eternity but I am quite sure that no one will have a problem with how He delegates authority and neither will their be a problem with how we excercise any authority that He gives us, for all will know the Fathers will.

Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Peace be with you!
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
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?

Mungo,

You ask 3 excellent questions here. I'll attempt an answer, one at a time:

1. It seems to me that the Bible is 'our only point of reference' according to 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV):

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

It doesn't say that tradition or the Bible teachers are useful/necessary for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. We are 'thoroughly equipped for every good work' by Scripture. Nothing else is stated.

2. Before the Bible was compiled, people learned the truth through oral transmission - not oral tradition. These facts were transmitted about people, places and times. The evidence points to the biblical text being place into written form soon after the events were described.

Take Luke 1:1-4 (NIV) as an example. The Gospel tells us how he obtained his information :

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.​

There you have it. He obtained the evidence from 'eye witnesses and servants of the Lord'. He 'carefully investigated' the details for himself and wrote 'an orderly account' to Theophilus. What did that do for the people who read the Gospel of Luke? They knew 'the certainty of the things you have been taught'.

We are not told who wrote the Gospel. There is no subterfuge here. It is estimated the Gospel of Luke was written about A.D. 58 and 65. That's only a period of oral transmission of about 30 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. This is a good question. People didn't have to know which books were in the Bible - OT and NT - as there were prophets and others in the OT who were there to provide that kind of information. As for the NT, the churches after the apostles identified the authoritative books. There were questionable books, including Hebrews, 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation. However, the churches confirmed the NT books in the canon at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
In false Christianity such as much on this forum and your brand which is anything but Christianity and quite a lie and not Christian at all says no Baptism. In real Christianity St. Peter has said "Repent and be baptized" when asked what to do to be saved. Pagan religions, such as yours, hate the truth

historyb,

So is your view the only one which is correct?

Making accusation about 'false Christianity' on this forum - without providing - exegesis from the biblical text is irresponsible and will stir trouble.

Can you imagine Jesus saying to the thief on the cross, 'Repent and be baptized'? But he went to Paradise at death.

I affirm believers' baptism as taught in the NT, but the NT formula for salvation is: '8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – 9 not by works, so that no one can boast' (Eph 2:8-9 NIV).

It does not confirm grace by faith + baptism for salvation.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
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.

So, does that make you sinless right now?

If we are 'cleansed of all sin', how would 1 John 1:9 apply as it states that if the believer sins, he or she has to confess the sin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Mungo,

You ask 3 excellent questions here. I'll attempt an answer, one at a time:

1. It seems to me that the Bible is 'our only point of reference' according to 2 Tim 3:16-17 (NIV):

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It doesn't say that tradition or the Bible teachers are useful/necessary for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. We are 'thoroughly equipped for every good work' by Scripture. Nothing else is stated.

1. This text can only be referring to the OT which is the only scripture that Timothy knew.

2. Vs 16 does say that scripture is useful for teaching…….." That is exactly what it says.

3. So even if we allow it to refer to scripture yet to be writing and canonised it does not say that scripture is solely sufficient. It just says it us useful.

4. verse 17 does not say that scripture alone equips us. It says that it is necessary to thoroughly equip us. Without it we cannot be thoroughly equipped. Timothy himself could not be thoroughly equipped just by reading the scripture that he knew (OT). He needed Paul's teaching.

2. Before the Bible was compiled, people learned the truth through oral transmission - not oral tradition.

Oral transmission is what Catholic mean by Tradition (capital "T") or Sacred Tradition to give it the full name. The teaching of Jesus and the apostles was handed on in both written for and oral form.

Paul says this himself when he writes: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter". (2Thess 2:15)

These facts were transmitted about people, places and times. The evidence points to the biblical text being place into written form soon after the events were described.

Take Luke 1:1-4 (NIV) as an example. The Gospel tells us how he obtained his information :

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

There you have it. He obtained the evidence from 'eye witnesses and servants of the Lord'. He 'carefully investigated' the details for himself and wrote 'an orderly account' to Theophilus. What did that do for the people who read the Gospel of Luke? They knew 'the certainty of the things you have been taught'.

We are not told who wrote the Gospel. There is no subterfuge here. It is estimated the Gospel of Luke was written about A.D. 58 and 65. That's only a period of oral transmission of about 30 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Yes, but nowhere does it say that all the teaching was written down in the period you mention. Dates for John's gospel and letters, 2 Peter and Jude are anywhere up to 100 AD

Luke does not say that his gospel is all there is to know. They knew 'the certainty of what they had been taught'. But surely you do not believe that we can jettison all the OT and just use Luke's gospel. It is not sufficient on its own.
3. This is a good question. People didn't have to know which books were in the Bible - OT and NT - as there were prophets and others in the OT who were there to provide that kind of information.

And which particular 'prophets and others' could they believe if there were disputes?

What authority did these 'prophets and others' have to decide?


As for the NT, the churches after the apostles identified the authoritative books. There were questionable books, including Hebrews, 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation. However, the churches confirmed the NT books in the canon at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.
Oz

The Council of Carthage was a long time before for people knew for certain which books scripture. And by what authority did the Council of Carthage decide for all Christendom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: historyb

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
1. This text can only be referring to the OT which is the only scripture that Timothy knew.
This is not so, In 1 Timothy 4:18, Paul quotes from Luke 10:7, describes it as Scripture and expects Timothy to pick up the reference.
2. Vs 16 does say that scripture is useful for teaching…….." That is exactly what it says.

3. So even if we allow it to refer to scripture yet to be writing and canonised it does not say that scripture is solely sufficient. It just says it us useful.

4. verse 17 does not say that scripture alone equips us. It says that it is necessary to thoroughly equip us. Without it we cannot be thoroughly equipped. Timothy himself could not be thoroughly equipped just by reading the scripture that he knew (OT). He needed Paul's teaching
Scripture is necessary so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped,or equipped through and through. How much more equipped can one be? See also 2 Timothy 2:15. Paul was writing Scripture to Timothy, but generally, we all need to have the Scriptures explained to us and applied. What we don't need is extra-biblical stuff being foisted upon us and being told, without any evidence, that it is something miraculously passed down from the Apostles. If I want extra-biblical stuff I can read the book of Mormon.:eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzSpen

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The Council of Carthage was a long time before for people knew for certain which books scripture.
I disagree. Polycarp, in AD 110 or just after, made more than 50 N.T. quotations in his letter to the church in Philippi from 16 N.T. books. The Holy Spirit guided men into truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzSpen

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Pagan religions, such as yours, hate the truth
It is the *Traditionalist Churches* who hate the truth. Otherwise there would have been no Counter-Reformation.

Here's someone calling Bible-believing Christians pagans, when it was the Roman Catholic Church which incorporated all the pagan ideas into its False Christianity (including the cult of the Queen of Heaven)!

The Five Solas were meant to put all Christians on the same track, but the Reformers did not go far enough regarding baptism. They should have followed the lead of the Anabaptists instead of persecuting and killing them.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
It is the *Traditionalist Churches* who hate the truth. Otherwise there would have been no Counter-Reformation.

Your logic is appalling.
If there had been no "Reformation" which introduced false teaching there would have been no need for a Counter-Reformation to assert long held truths.

Here's someone calling Bible-believing Christians pagans, when it was the Roman Catholic Church which incorporated all the pagan ideas into its False Christianity (including the cult of the Queen of Heaven)!

As usual you make false claims about the Catholic Church but provide no evidence to back up your lies.

Try reading the Bible. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Ex 20:16)

The Five Solas were meant to put all Christians on the same track, but the Reformers did not go far enough regarding baptism. They should have followed the lead of the Anabaptists instead of persecuting and killing them.

The five solas are false unbiblical teaching
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I disagree. Polycarp, in AD 110 or just after, made more than 50 N.T. quotations in his letter to the church in Philippi from 16 N.T. books. The Holy Spirit guided men into truth.

So you think that Polycarp was an authoritative and infallible person who defined what was scripture and what was not.

The disagreements about what was NT scripture went on long after Polycarp.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
This is not so, In 1 Timothy 4:18, Paul quotes from Luke 10:7, describes it as Scripture and expects Timothy to pick up the reference.
1Tim 4:18 does not exist.

How do you know Timothy had even heard of Luke's gospel?


Scripture is necessary so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped,or equipped through and through. How much more equipped can one be? See also 2 Timothy 2:15. Paul was writing Scripture to Timothy, but generally, we all need to have the Scriptures explained to us and applied. What we don't need is extra-biblical stuff being foisted upon us and being told, without any evidence, that it is something miraculously passed down from the Apostles. If I want extra-biblical stuff I can read the book of Mormon.:eek:

I'm not doubting that scripture is necessary.

But your quotes do not say that scripture ALONE is enough.

Paul says this himself when he writes: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter". (2Thess 2:15)
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, does that make you sinless right now?

If we are 'cleansed of all sin', how would 1 John 1:9 apply as it states that if the believer sins, he or she has to confess the sin?

1 John 1:9 is how to become a Christian. This is how to become born again with a new nature, one of the Holy Spirit that loves what God loves, and hates what God hates. How many times are we born again? Did you read 2 Peter 1:9 that I quoted in my post? Focus on the last two words. If it didn't sink in, read it again. In fact, re-read the whole quote.
 
Last edited:

Nondenom40

Active Member
May 21, 2019
493
246
43
Illinois
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The OT saints did not have Him. We do!
They looked forward to the cross, we look back. Its all by faith. Read Heb 11. If water baptism is necessary for us, it would have been necessary for them. God is not a God of confusion.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
They looked forward to the cross, we look back. Its all by faith. Read Heb 11. If water baptism is necessary for us, it would have been necessary for them. God is not a God of confusion.

Doesn't follow at all.

The OT saints were in a different Covenant with a different entry into it.

We are in the New Covenant with baptism as the entry into it.
“In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:11-12) This clearly links a “spiritual circumcision” with baptism, a link from baptism to the covenant, not through physical circumcision (as in the Old Covenant) but a spiritual one.

This is why we must be “born from above”. Jews were born into the Old Covenant. When we are born from above we are born into the New Covenant.

Converts to Judaism had a formal conversion process which involved undergoing the ritual bath (in a mikvah) and for men circumcision. For Christians last requirement was dispensed with at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. But the ritual bath remained as baptism.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
1 John 1:9 is how to become a Christian. This is how to become born again with a new nature, one of the Holy Spirit that loves what God loves, and hates what God hates. How many times are we born again? Did you read 2 Peter 1:9 that I quoted in my post? Focus on the last two words. If it didn't sink in, read it again. In fact, re-read the whole quote.

CL,

I don't think so. Throughout 1 John it speaks of those who are believers: 'and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one' (1 Jn 2:`4 NIV).

Oz