Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

[Doubting Thomas]

Baptism is a public profession, of your faith in Jesus. It is not a requirement! of salvation. However; I think no one who has been saved, should refuse to be Baptised. That would send a red flag up to me.

To those who think it is a requirement, go study your Bible with your eyes open. You will find water baptism, is not! what the Lord was referring to. The doctrines of men, and their commandments, have done much damage to the body of Christ. But is still prevails, even against the gates of hell.

You know, several have studied the Bible with their "eyes open" and have concluded that, yes, water baptism is generally necessary for salvation. I am such an example who grew up as a Southern Baptist believing it was only a nonessential public profession of faith (or visual aid, if you will), but have since changed my mind after studying the Bible apart from my denomination's controlling paradigm. Suffice it to say, the historic consensus position of the Church until Zwingli was that water baptism is a sign that by the grace of God actually effects what it signifies.

 

[DHK]

You know, several have studied the Bible with their "eyes open" and have concluded that, yes, water baptism is generally necessary for salvation.

There was a general consensus among "many" that kool-aid laced with cyanide was going to save them. Were they right?
Is the majority always right? Rarely.
Do you agree with all the presidents that your nation has elected, and even this time have elected to power, by majority vote, to office? Is the majority always right?

Which is right: the Bible or the majority? I put my faith in the Bible which clearly teaches to repent, and then be baptized. There is no teaching in the Bible that links baptism to salvation. Why go with the majority then, who are clearly wrong.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Doubting Thomas,

"Suffice it to say, the historic consensus position of the Church until Zwingli was that water baptism is a sign that by the grace of God actually effects what it signifies."

This is a classic example of why it is so important to NOT heed the "historic consensus of the church" cart blanche...since the "historic consensus" is here obviously wrong.


To the scriptures, to the scriptures, to the scriptures.



:godisgood:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas,



This is a classic example of why it is so important to NOT heed the "historic consensus of the church" cart blanche...since the "historic consensus" is here obviously wrong.


To the scriptures, to the scriptures, to the scriptures.

The historic consensus of the Church has found it's teaching regarding baptism in the Scripture. They would say unto you: stop misinterpreting, stop misinterpreting, stop misinterpreting. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Darron Steele]

No misinterpreting about it.

Acts 10:43 says what it means and means what it says: “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Baptized or not, "everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins."

All passages that are used to teach anything different are misunderstood. There are no contradictions in Scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, if circumcision was necissary for someone to be Jewish in the OT and baptism replaces circumcision then what would follow?

 

[DHK]

Well, if circumcision was necissary for someone to be Jewish in the OT and baptism replaces circumcision then what would follow?

But baptism does not replace circumcision. That theological idea is just wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But baptism does not replace circumcision. That theological idea is just wrong.

Explain why you think it is wrong. These verse seemed to indicate that baptism is essential in the christian faith and also seems to corrispond with the forgiveness of sins:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

 

[Zenas]

But baptism does not replace circumcision. That theological idea is just wrong.

Please elaborate, especially on Colossians 2:11-12, which seems to equate circumcision with baptism.

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It just occured to me. I'm slow on the uptake but is baptism no more than a christianized Mikvah? Jesus being Jewish and John being Jewish this spiritual cleansing would have been important. Ritual cleansing. So is this the consept that the early christians have with regard to baptism? ITs a Mikvah?

 

[DHK]

Explain why you think it is wrong. These verse seemed to indicate that baptism is essential in the christian faith and also seems to corrispond with the forgiveness of sins:

Baptism and circumcision are not related to one another in the Scriptures.
The Scriptures teach:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Being justified by faith we have peace with God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

These Scriptures, and many more, emphasize that salvation is by faith and by faith alone. It is not by works that a person is saved. Baptism is a work. It is the work of a person. A person does the baptizing and a person receives the baptizing. It is man that does it. It is a work.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--If you believe salvation is by grace then it cannot include baptism, for baptism is a work, and according to Paul would automatically exclude grace. Grace and works are incompatible.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

In Mark it does not say whosoever will not be baptized shall be condemned. It is unbelief that condemns inasmuch as it is belief that saves. Baptism is the first step after belief or salvation.

In Acts 2:38, as in Mat.3:11 the word "for" as in "for the forgiveness of sins" is the Greek word "eis" and could more accurately be rendered "because of." They were being baptized because their sins were forgiven. That was true of John the Baptist as well. He preached baptism unto repentance, or baptism because of repentance. He wasn't going to baptize a person so that they would repent, but because they had already repented. He told them to bring forth fruits suitable for repentance.

In the last passage you have taken way out of context. Who said it? When was it said? To whom was it said? Answer these questions first. Then ask yourself the question: At what point in the life of Paul was he saved?

 

[DHK]

Please elaborate, especially on Colossians 2:11-12, which seems to equate circumcision with baptism.

Context please:
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
--The tradition of men at this point in time was circumcision, as it had nothing to do with the gospel. Paul was teaching that Christ had fulfilled the Law. They were no longer under the law. They were to walk after Christ.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
--Christ was not found in the traditions of men, including circumcision. In Christ dwelled all the fullness of the Godhead.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
--We are complete in Him. We don't need circumcision, and we don't need baptism. Those that are saved are complete in Christ.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
In the OT circumcision was a physical act; in the NT it is symbolic. It is made without hands. But baptism is made with hands. Therefore the one has nothing to do with the other. In the OT circumcision set the Jew apart from others. It was part of being sanctified, not saved. Here the picture also refers to the believers sanctification. God has set us apart for his service, just as he did the Jewish nation. Let us hope and pray that we can do better than the Jewish nation did by being a light to the Gentiles.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
--Now he gives the significance of baptism, also given here as symbolic. It symbolizes the believer's death to sin, and his resurrection to a new life in Christ. See also Romans 6:3,4. There is no inference of children here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Baptism and circumcision are not related to one another in the Scriptures.
The Scriptures teach:
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Being justified by faith we have peace with God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

These Scriptures, and many more, emphasize that salvation is by faith and by faith alone. It is not by works that a person is saved. Baptism is a work. It is the work of a person. A person does the baptizing and a person receives the baptizing. It is man that does it. It is a work.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--If you believe salvation is by grace then it cannot include baptism, for baptism is a work, and according to Paul would automatically exclude grace. Grace and works are incompatible.

In Mark it does not say whosoever will not be baptized shall be condemned. It is unbelief that condemns inasmuch as it is belief that saves. Baptism is the first step after belief or salvation.

In Acts 2:38, as in Mat.3:11 the word "for" as in "for the forgiveness of sins" is the Greek word "eis" and could more accurately be rendered "because of." They were being baptized because their sins were forgiven. That was true of John the Baptist as well. He preached baptism unto repentance, or baptism because of repentance. He wasn't going to baptize a person so that they would repent, but because they had already repented. He told them to bring forth fruits suitable for repentance.

In the last passage you have taken way out of context. Who said it? When was it said? To whom was it said? Answer these questions first. Then ask yourself the question: At what point in the life of Paul was he saved?

Ok Aninias to Saul or Paul here is the context

"A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13He stood beside me and said, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him.

14"Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Sounds like Mikvah to me.

 

[DHK]

Ok Aninias to Saul or Paul here is the context

Sounds like Mikvah to me.

You are still ignoring the total context. When was Saul/Paul saved?
And this has nothing to do with Mikvah or whatever.
Remember that Saul, at that time, was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a member of the Sanhedrin, taught at the feet of Gamileal, quite possibly the most learned man in his time.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are still ignoring the total context. When was Saul/Paul saved?
And this has nothing to do with Mikvah or whatever.
Remember that Saul, at that time, was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a member of the Sanhedrin, taught at the feet of Gamileal, quite possibly the most learned man in his time.

What does his education have to do with Mikvah or baptism if they are indeed different? He surely would have known of it and put it into a christian context. Its not ignoring the context Aninias told Paul to do this thing. How is it out of context. He said "what are you waiting for." He didn't say "Doctor Paul you education is deemed to be excellent thus you are saved".

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

That's weird. We were in a Presbyterian church for 13 years and had our daughters dedicated there. We had a choice - you could baptize or dedicate. It made no difference since they didn't teach that baptism did anything "special" with infants. That was a PCUSA (and was one of the 1% of solid PCs around)

It WAS weird. Their comment was "Did you know that Baptists baptize without water?" I had to explain to them that it was a baby dedication, not a baptism. Then (since I was raised Baptist), I explained the differences between the two.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Joh:13:5: After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
Joh:13:6: Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Joh:13:8: Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Joh:13:9: Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Joh:13:10: Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. ( Indicating Judas.)

Joh:15:3: Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

1Jo:5:4: For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jo:5:5: Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1Jo:5:6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

At the cross when the Roman soldier pierced his side! what came forth?, water and blood. The indication that Christ is sufficient to, and in all things. You are saved by his life, and sacrifice, nothing else added. Well of course your faith.

 

[DHK]

What does his education have to do with Mikvah or baptism if they are indeed different? He surely would have known of it and put it into a christian context. Its not ignoring the context Aninias told Paul to do this thing. How is it out of context. He said "what are you waiting for." He didn't say "Doctor Paul you education is deemed to be excellent thus you are saved".

Why are you so fixated on Mkvah, a Jewish ritual?

ritual bath for purification: among Orthodox Jews, a ritual bath for cleansing or purification, especially before the Sabbath or following menstruation, childbirth, or contact with a corpse

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861630018

Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was way past this point. Your point here is totally irrelevant. He had seen the Lord; the Lord Jesus Christ who had appeared to him in a vision. He addressed Christ as Lord. Admitting Christ as Lord of His life, he then asked His Lord, "What will you have me to do?" Only a believer would ask a question like that. Only a believer addresses Christ as Lord. Saul was saved long before he ever met Ananias. Baptism was well after salvation. He sins were forgiven long before that time. The two were totally unrelated to each other.
If you had taken time to answer the questions I had put forth to you, you would be able to see this. Context is important. Paul was saved on the road to Damascus, not when he met Ananias.

 

[Matt Black]

No misinterpreting about it.

Acts 10:43 says what it means and means what it says: “everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins” (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Baptized or not, "everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins."

All passages that are used to teach anything different are misunderstood. There are no contradictions in Scripture.

And, once again the Cult of individual interpretation and Human Reason triumphs over Scripture and Tradition [sarcasm]:applause: [/sarcasm]

 

[Matt Black]

But baptism does not replace circumcision. That theological idea is just wrong.

I guess St Paul didn't get your memo then: Col 2:11-12