Is Baptism required for Salvation?

[mojoala]

Quote:
I agree with the earlier post about "born of water" referring to natural birth. The ancient Hebrews used terms such as "drop" and "water" to describe natural birth (in Jack W. Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Study Bible, page 1577).
This is pretty scanty evidence. I see a bald assertion but no scriptural or other kind of citation to back this up. As we used to say when we were kids, "Just saying so, doesn't it make it so." The burden of proof remains on them.

To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, "You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit." A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid" (VIII:314–333).

The word "water" cannot refer to amniotic fluid or anything other than natural water, and the passage must be understood as referring to baptism.

 

[mojoala]

To summarize the link:

1) The grammar doesn't make much sense if "of water" refers to physical birth.

2) The context of the passage is overflowing with baptism. Immediately after Jesus' speech about this, He and the desciples are baptizing, and then John the Baptist goes and baptizes.

3) We always talk about the unanimous interpretation of the early fathers, and that usually means not 100% unanimous, but 75 or 80%. Not so with baptism. I couldn find a single father who interpreted this verse as anything other than baptism. It was 100% unanimous. To believe what your friend wants to, he has to say that every single Christian and Church leader living in the time of the apostles, including men who learned from the apostles themselves, were wrong.

 

[mojoala]

But if you look at it from a purely logical standpoint, it's preposterous. It wouldn't even be listed as a requirement if it were natural birth, because every person on this earth has been born of woman, even our Lord. It would've been redundant. To say that a man must be born of natural birth to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven would be like someone saying to you that you have to be born with eyes to see. It may be true, but you don't have to be told that.

You also have to remember that John 3:5 is actually a clarification by Christ in regards to his remark to Nicodemus that a man must be born again to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. When Nicodemus asked how that should be so for an old man, Christ said that he must be born of water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit, to enter therein.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, "You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit." A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid" (VIII:314–333).

The word "water" cannot refer to amniotic fluid or anything other than natural water, and the passage must be understood as referring to baptism.

First, please do not put words in our mouths -- we said "water," not "amniotic fluid." All I meant is "water." The other poster I believe also used "water." By playing these games, you discredit yourself.

I also referred to a source published by a major Bible publisher. This was to support another poster. Have you considered that maybe the annotated study Bible meant both biblical and non-biblical texts that link terms such as "water" and "drop" to natural birth? That is ancient Hebrew terminology.

This goes very well with the next verse -- and remember the Bible was given unversified:
"Except ye be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (ASV) -- John 3:5-6.
Evident from passage:
born of water = natural birth of flesh <--matching ancient Hebrew terminology already discussed
born of Spirit = spiritual birth.

Second, at John 3:3-6 you see "baptism" where the Bible says "water." Hence, it is not as clear as you claim it is.

 

[carpro]

Is Baptism required for Salvation?

Of course not.

 

[Darron Steele]

So, you only want people on this board that agree with you? People shouldn't start new threads based on their belief system? What if they agree with what you already believe? Not much debate.

Like you, I was somewhat offended by that person's remarks. First of all, this is a place to discuss non-Baptist beliefs and for any Christians, and it is also a place where we can discuss Baptist beliefs and involve both Baptists and non-Baptists. What disappointed me most is that as someone who has attended a Church of Christ, I am on here in agreement with some Baptist doctrines.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned".

Baptist thinking, if I am correct, is the next part "he that believeth not shall be| condemned." (KJV|DRV). They point out that it will take non-belief to be condemned.

I consider the forgery of "Mark 16:9-20" to be irrelevant to the Scriptural understanding of baptism. Not only do the two oldest manuscripts with a transition from Mark 16:8 and another New Testament book not have this text, but other manuscripts either:
1) have a short ending instead of this ending,
2) have mutiple endings,
3) mark the passage.
Manuscripts from several ancient translations also lack this text. There is also seems to be no direct reference to any distinctive text of this passage before 150 C.E.. I hold that Mark 16:8 is the authentic end of what ever was truly Scripture in the Gospel of Mark.

 

[Darron Steele]

As far as the argument you listed from 1st Corinthians, lets dig a little deeper.

Were the Corinthians baptized? Let's read Acts 18:8, "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized."

Did Paul baptize any of them? Yes, a few.

Is there any indication that any of the believers were NOT baptized? NONE!!!!

They were baptized, but Paul didn't do very much of the baptizing and he was glad. Why? Because Paul and the Corinthians understood the importance of baptism. In order to belong to Christ, He would have to die for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. In order for you to belong to Paul, he would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in his name.

Let's read it in context.

I Cor 1:12-17 "What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (J.H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 94).

Paul was glad that he had not administered the rite of baptism so that no one may say that they were baptized in his name.

Note, Paul did not say that he was glad that they were not baptized, because that had all been baptized. That alone defeats your entire argument.

Not really. Let me clarify this point:
I Corinthians 9:22b-23 records Paul writing “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. | And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof” (TNIV|ASV). Paul wanted to do anything right to get people salvation. However, at I Corinthians 1:14 he writes “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except” (TNIV) a few people, and at 1:17a he writes “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (ASV). It follows that if Paul wanted “by all possible means” to “save,” yet saw no need to `administer the right of baptism,’ then baptism must not have been part of the means for people to be saved.

Let me add: Despite the fact that Paul was not sent by Jesus Christ to baptize per I Corinthians 1:17, Paul did write this to the same audience at I Corinthians 3:5-6: “What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him. I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (ASV). Paul takes credit for planting the seeds of salvation, yet `administered the rite of baptism' to only a few of the Corinthian Christians. Obviously, Paul did not consider the act of baptism to be part of the means of attaining salvation.

 

[Darron Steele]

We obey the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15) in baptism according to Rom 6:3-4, 17 17.

Verse 17 has no relevance to baptism. Romans 6:3-5 needs to be read within the passage of which it is part: Romans 6:1-11. The passage is a picture of how we are to view our relationship to sin. Romans 6:2b says “We are those who have died to sin” (TNIV). This is obviously a picture because concrete reality is that Christians still face the sin problem per 1 John 1:8-10. Romans 6:11 closes “reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin” (ASV). Romans 6:3-5 is a picture within that picture passage -- we are pictorially dead to sin, pictorially did so by dying and rising again in baptism, were pictorially crucified, should live as though dead to sin, and should consider ourselves dead to sin.' We have to be able to read more than just a few verses to understand the Scriptures.

You offered Galatians 3:27 as a parallel to this. In Galatians 3:24 the Law is called “our tutor to Christ” (NASB literal), and then in 3:25 Paul writes “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (NASB). This is a reference to a cultural norm in Roman society: a youth who became an adult put aside his childhood clothes in favor of new clothing, representing the move into adulthood (Life Application Bible NIV, original edition, page 2121). This is a case where knowledge of ancient cultural norms facilitates understanding the meaning of `put on.’ By identifying oneself with Christ by baptism in His name, one abandons the tutor, which is the Mosaic Law, and “puts on Christ,” representing spiritual maturity.

Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel which he did as seen in Acts 18:8. The people who believed his message were baptized, therefore his gospel message contained instructions for baptism.
…
If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?
…
Belief and baptism are always the proper response to the preaching of the gospel (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 18:8, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 8:5,12,35-38, 16:30-34), but not according to you.

I am not aware of any post here that says that baptism is not something that we should do. I have no doubts that most Baptists believe that any Christian should be baptized. The question is academic: are we unsaved before completed baptism? The answer, going by the best understanding of the Word of God, seems to be `no.’

This does NOT mean that we do not have to be baptized. If you posted a thread “Do you believe we have to be baptized to obey God?” most or all of us here would post affirmatives. However, that is not the question of this thread.

Paul obviously did preach and practice that baptism should immediately follow acceptance of the Gospel. Peter did also. I am with you that baptism should be administered immediately after acceptance of the Gospel.

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

Does the Thief on the Cross Teach Baptism not essential?

People who believe in salvation by "faith only" often claim that the thief on the cross proves that baptism is not necessary to receive the forgiveness of sins. Was the thief saved under the gospel of Jesus Christ? Does the Bible teach that people today can be forgiven by faith alone without being baptized?

Introduction:
Luke 23:39-43 - While Jesus was dying, there was a conversation with the two thieves who were dying with Him. One ridiculed Him. The other defended Jesus and recognized Jesus was innocent. Jesus promised this one would be in Paradise that day.
This saying of Jesus has become a center of controversy. Many folks believe they are saved today by "faith only" and baptism is not essential to being forgiven of sins. When the subject is discussed, these folks often argue that the thief was saved without being baptized and this example shows people today can do the same.
Consider Jesus' statement about the thief. Does it mean we can be saved by faith alone without baptism?

1. The thief is also not an example of salvation by faith under the gospel.
Those who argue for salvation by "faith only" cannot use the thief to defend their position either, for he did not have the kind of faith that is required for salvation today.
Romans 10:9 - that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
To be saved according to the gospel we must believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead. The thief on the cross could not possibly believe that, since Jesus had not died let alone been raised.
Hence, people who believe faith is essential to salvation cannot use the thief as their example for how to be saved. He was no more saved by the faith of the gospel than he was saved by baptism. We could as easily use the thief to prove salvation without Scriptural faith as we could to use him as an example of salvation without baptism.
Even those who believe in salvation by faith only must admit we today are not saved like the thief was saved. But if we today are not saved like the thief was saved, why bring up the fact he was not baptized?

2. Many Scriptures clearly teach that baptism is essential to receive forgiveness under the gospel.
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
Acts 22:16 - Be baptized and wash away your sins.
Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27 - We are baptized into Christ, into His death. We have newness of life after we have been baptized (John 3:3,5).
I Pet. 3:21 - Baptism now saves us.
God's word does not contradict itself. It clearly teaches baptism is essential to receive remission. Therefore, the thief cannot prove people ARE saved without baptism for that would contradict other Scriptures. So there must be some other explanation for the case of the thief.

3. The thief was saved while the Old Testament was still in effect. He is not an example of salvation under the gospel at all.
The truth is that the thief was saved under a different law and dispensation than we are under. That is why it does not matter whether or not he believed what we must believe, and for the same reason it does not matter whether or not he was baptized. How he was saved is irrelevant to how we are saved.
Col. 2:14 - Jesus removed the first ordinances nailing them to His cross. Until Jesus died, the Jews lived under the laws given at Mt. Sinai through Moses. When He died, those laws ceased to be in effect.
Eph. 2:13-16 - He abolished the old law through His blood shed on the cross (v13,16).
Heb. 10:9,10; 9:16,17 - Jesus removed the first testament and replaced it with His new covenant the gospel. It is under this new testament that we are saved by Jesus' death. As with any will or testament, Jesus had to die to bring His testament into force. The old law was in effect until Jesus died, then it was replaced by the New Covenant. [Cf. Gal. 3:13; Rom. 7:4]
But the thief was forgiven before Jesus died and therefore while the first covenant was in effect. The conditions he had to meet to be forgiven prove nothing about the conditions under which we are forgiven. He proves no more about how we should be saved than does David, Moses, Noah, or Abraham. They did not have to believe what we do nor did they have to be baptized because they did not live under the same law we do.

4. While Jesus was on earth, He had the power to forgive people directly as He chose. After His death, people can be saved only according to the terms of His will.
During His life, Jesus directly spoke the forgiveness of several people (Mark 2:5-12; Luke 7:48,49; cf. John 8:1-11). Apparently the thief is another such case. But the conditions under which He forgave people then are not the terms of the gospel since, as shown above, it was not yet in effect.
During his lifetime, a man may distribute his possessions to anyone he wishes in any way he wishes. But after his death, no one has any right to receive anything from the man except according to the terms of his will or testament. The will does not come into effect till He dies.
So Jesus directly forgave people during His lifetime (apparently according to His ability to read their hearts and observe their lives). The gospel came into effect after He died, and people today receive forgiveness only by complying with its terms. Those terms require baptism, as well as faith, as per verses already listed.
Jesus is the Lord and Savior. Only He has the right to announce the terms under which He will forgive men. If we seek His forgiveness, it must be according to the conditions He has revealed.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[mojoala]

This does NOT mean that we do not have to be baptized. If you posted a thread "Do you believe we have to be baptized to obey God?" most or all of us here would post affirmatives. However, that is not the question of this thread.

The question was asked of Jesus what is required to have eternal life? Jesus said "follow the commandments. That is the same as obeying God.

 

[carpro]

It's notable that those who espouse the belief that baptism is required for salvation have to ignore a lot of scripture to hold fast to that belief.

The bedrock verse of that belief is, of course, Acts 2:38.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

But Acts 3:19 has to be ignored.

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,"

Which, of course doesn't mention baptism. It is useful to remember that both these statements were made by the same man, Peter. Did Peter make a mistake or somehow just forget about baptism in 3:19? How could he possibly make such a critical mistake about such a critical act, if it was actually that critical?

The answer is, of course, that he did not make a mistake and he was not forgetful. He did, in fact, give his listeners all the information that was required for salvation as noted by E.L. Bynum.

"Peter commands the crowd to repent, renounce the sinful lives that led to Jesus' death, and turn (NIV adds to God) so that . . . sins may be wiped out (compare Ps 51:1, 9; Is 43:25) and times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord--that is, God the Father. Here is the immediate relief that the people can expect, since salvation is now accomplished..."

 

[Carpenter]

I think many times we miss the real issue with baptism. Baptism is the result of the FAITH we have in the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we truly believe and put our faith and complete trust in Him, then we should have no problem being obedient in baptism. If we lack true FAITH, we can confess and get baptized every day and it would mean nothing. Sure, you can be saved and never be baptized. But, what were the circumstances. If you have ever confessed to be saved and failed to follow the Lord in baptism when it was possible, then you may want to take a look at the genuiness of your salvation experience.

I think this is what James is getting at in his Gospel. We show our Faith by our works. Our Faith produces the desire to be obedient and follow Christ's example.

In His Love,
Bobby

 

[mojoala]

But Acts 3:19 has to be ignored.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Break it down brother bob:

19 Repent (change the way you think)
ye therefore,
and be converted (if you have succeeded in changing your way of think, then your'e mind is converted),
that your sins may( keyword is may. It is not a will or a shall)
INTERJECTION: Now before your sins can be blotted out you have to do some other things
A: You have to confess of any sins you have committed, B: You have to believe in Jesus Christ.

The believing in Jesus Christ is very loaded and contains a number of requirements:
1. Acknowledge him as Lord.
2. Accepting him as your Lord.
3. Acknowledge that he died for our sins.
4. Obey everything commandments that he gave.
5. Doing all the good examples he presented.
6. Obeying all of the directives he gave.
7. and everything else I could not name right off hand.

It's not the mere hyper-literal interpretation of the word Believe, Believeth, or any conjugation thereof.

be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

I hear people say all the time that we are saved by grace not by works and i agree and they say that baptism is a work, but if baptism is a work then you would have to go on and say that repenting is a work and belief is a work, because you are doing something in order to recieve salvation.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[rbell]

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Break it down brother bob:

19 Repent (change the way you think)
ye therefore,
and be converted (if you have succeeded in changing your way of think, then your'e mind is converted),
that your sins may( keyword is may. It is not a will or a shall)

Mojo,

Your rendering of "may" is absolutely not what the Greek says. You've imposed an English meaning to the Greek that simply isn't there. Try again.

 

[mojoala]

Mojo,

Your rendering of "may" is absolutely not what the Greek says. You've imposed an English meaning to the Greek that simply isn't there. Try again.

My Rendering? I am just quoting what has been translated from Greek to English;

Douay Rheims:
Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

King James Version:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Bible in Basic English:
So then, let your hearts be changed and be turned to God, so that your sins may be completely taken away, and times of blessing may come from the Lord;

Youngs Literal translation:
reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Spanish:
Así que, arrepentíos y convertíos, para que sean borrados vuestros pecados; pues que vendrán los tiempos del refrigerio de la presencia del Señor,

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU WANT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLES THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN INTERPRETED INTO THE PROPER CONTEXT OF ENGLISH? THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY WE DON'T POSSESS THE RIGHTFUL WORD OF GOD. THEREFORE WHAT WE HAVE IS A WORK OF SATAN. CORRUPT AND FOUL.

 

[Brother Bob]

Holy Ghost Baptism

The Holy Ghost Baptism is necessary for Salvation for that is the baptism of Jesus Christ when you are born again.:flower:

 

[mojoala]

The Holy Ghost Baptism is necessary for Salvation for that is the baptism of Jesus Christ when you are born again.:flower:

Please provide scriptural support that states this is required for Salvation.

The new testament begins Baptism with water Baptism.

Therefore following the precedent:

Anywhere the word Baptism or Baptized is used, it means water Baptism unless explicitly stated otherwise.

You have to show me verses in the Bible where some one was ACTUALLY being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

ALL accounts of ACTUAL BAPTISM are of the Water Method.

 

[Brother Bob]

This was the example for the Gentile nation

Acts, chapter 10
"43": To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

"44": While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

"45": And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"46": For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

"47": Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

[DHK]

If baptism were required for salvation then the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation and Christ did not fully atone for our sins. We had to pay part of the price ourselves through the work of baptism, and as Eph.2:8,9 points out "lest any man should boast," there will be boasting in heaven about how we earned our salvation.
DHK