Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[miknik5]

Oh. Preach the WORD?

Every Sunday before impressionable preteens

 

[redleghunter]

Cornelius either was, or was not in a saved state when he received the Holy Spirit.

You must know if a person has received the Holy Spirit they are in a saved state. Christ lives in them and they in Christ.

So why can you not simply say you accept that?.

Its obvious isn't it!

You would have to admit you can be in a saved state without firstly being baptised I water. And that you cannot admit for it contradicts your churches teaching.
so all you do is deflect and evade, deflect and evade, deflect......

My take is you are speaking of the new birth and how one is born again. As the apostle Peter states:

1 Peter 1: King James Version (KJV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,


2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,


5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

@MarysSon stated the various 'stages' of salvation mentioned and taught in the NT.

We are "justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5:1-2)

That is we are saved.

Then there is sanctification:


But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.(2 Thessalonians 2:13)


Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.(1 Peter 1:1-2).


I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. (Romans 6:19-22)

And to digress, but the NT teaches a threefold sanctification:

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called...(Jude 1:1)

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's...(1 Corinthians 1:2)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

This would be the terms "I am being saved." Being refined and conformed to the image of the Son. As the apostle Paul says:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

Which as mentioned in verse 30 above leads us to the next "I'm going to be saved." That would be glorification.



For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.(2 Corinthians 5:1-9)

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51-57)

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)


And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23)



I am saved (Justified in the site of God the Father through faith in the Perfect Work of Jesus Christ)

I am being saved (Sanctification, the refining God does in our lives. Throwing off the old man for the new man)

I will be saved (Glorification-Yes one day when the trumpet of resurrection blows we will put off the corruptible for the incorruptible)

 

[MarysSon]

Cornelius either was, or was not in a saved state when he received the Holy Spirit.

You must know if a person has received the Holy Spirit they are in a saved state. Christ lives in them and they in Christ.

So why can you not simply say you accept that?.

Its obvious isn't it!

You would have to admit you can be in a saved state without firstly being baptised I water. And that you cannot admit for it contradicts your churches teaching.
so all you do is deflect and evade, deflect and evade, deflect......

I gave you the Biblical definition for the process of salvation.
Was Cornelius in the initial state? Absolutely.

Did he have eternal assurance?
Nope.

 

[miknik5]

I gave you the Biblical definition for the process of salvation.
Was Cornelius in the initial state? Absolutely.

Did he have eternal assurance?
Nope.

Ah?

Im pretty sure that when the HOLY SPIRIT (that deposit guaranteeing our inheritance which is being kept for us in Heaven) cones upon those who believe

They have complete assurance

 

[miknik5]

WRONG.

There are not three TYPES of salvation.
Salvation is salvation. You don't get rescued in the ocean three times by three types of boats.

What I presented was the Biblical definition of salvation.
What YOU have done is confuse things.

And you only get baptized into CHRIST and reborn of HIS SPIRIT once

ONE BAPTISM
ONE BODY

either born again of THE IMPERISHABLE SEED of CHRIST ...A NEW CREATION IN CHRIST

or still of Adam

 

[MarysSon]

And you only get baptized into CHRIST and reborn of HIS SPIRIT once

ONE BAPTISM
ONE BODY

either born again of THE IMPERISHABLE SEED of CHRIST ...A NEW CREATION IN CHRIST

or still of Adam

NOW, you're gettin' it:
ONE BAPTISM

Water Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5).

 

[stuart lawrence]

NOW, you're gettin' it:
ONE BAPTISM

Water Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5).

So how come zaccheus received salvation without being baptised I water?

 

[Vicomte13]

NOW, you're gettin' it:
ONE BAPTISM

Water Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5).

Except when it isn't...Enoch. Elijah. Abraham and Lazarus (in the parable), The "good thief". Sinless babies. And of course the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of desire.

We should rather say that water baptism is the SURE way, the pointed-out-path. MAYBE God will save an individual anyway - it's all ultimately in God's hands - but if we listen to the shepherd we won't test the theory on ourselves.

 

[miknik5]

Cornelius was declared clean

And no man has any right to declare unclean what GOD makes clean

Did GOD have to wait til water washed Cornelius and his household to declare Cornelius and his household clean?
[

 

[miknik5]

NOW, you're gettin' it:
ONE BAPTISM

Water Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5).

Again
I wasn't talking about water

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Cornelius either was, or was not in a saved state when he received the Holy Spirit.

You must know if a person has received the Holy Spirit they are in a saved state. Christ lives in them and they in Christ.

So why can you not simply say you accept that?.

Its obvious isn't it!

You would have to admit you can be in a saved state without firstly being baptised I water. And that you cannot admit for it contradicts your churches teaching.
so all you do is deflect and evade, deflect and evade, deflect......

Think some people are talking past each other. Technically speaking, until we could say for certain that someone is Heaven, the Catholic could not declare that a specific person is known to saved. That is a distinction most Protestants do not make. So whether one could say with any certainty that a soldier named Cornelius is saved or not could only be spoken of in the general. Which was essentially done by the other Catholic poster. And a better understanding of the Catholic position would allow that to be understood without insisting it makes no sense. The thief on the Cross was not Baptized and clearly Catholics speak of his act of contrition as granting a person as having the baptism of desire can only be understood in a manner something similar to what is being demanded of the other Catholic poster toward Cornelius.

The difference between the two situation is we have no idea what Cornelius may or may not have said prior to his Baptism and we do not have God declaring a state that would allow Cornelius to be in Heaven shortly after whatever he may or may not have said. IOW no evidence of a pure act of contrition. So the question a Protestant demands cannot be answered by the Catholic in the affirmative.

 

[miknik5]

Think some people are talking past each other. Technically speaking, until we could say for certain that someone is Heaven, the Catholic could not declare that a specific person is known to saved. That is a distinction most Protestants do not make. So whether one could say with any certainty that a soldier named Cornelius is saved or not could only be spoken of in the general. Which was essentially done by the other Catholic poster. And a better understanding of the Catholic position would allow that to be understood without insisting it makes no sense. The thief on the Cross was not Baptized and clearly Catholics speak of his act of contrition as granting a person as having the baptism of desire can only be understood in a manner something similar to what is being demanded of the other Catholic poster toward Cornelius.

The difference between the two situation is we have no idea what Cornelius may or may not have said prior to his Baptism and we do not have God declaring a state that would allow Cornelius to be in Heaven shortly after whatever he may or may not have said. IOW no evidence of a pure act of contrition. So the question a Protestant demands cannot be answered by the Catholic in the affirmative.

How many catholic posters are we talking about

And please don't include me in any of the confusion

I know the "wind" goes where it listeth

And no man has the ability to either deter or to bring on the "wind"

That's GOD's WORK

 

[redleghunter]

I gave you the Biblical definition for the process of salvation.
Was Cornelius in the initial state? Absolutely.

Did he have eternal assurance?
Nope.

Pope Peter was teaching eternal assurance :

1 Peter 1: NKJV

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Pope Peter was teaching eternal assurance :

1 Peter 1: NKJV

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Pope Peter

That's an interesting one.

James was the head of the Jerusalem church wasn't he?

 

[redleghunter]

Pope Peter

That's an interesting one.

James was the head of the Jerusalem church wasn't he?

Well I was in conversation with a Catholic fellow poster. I tend to be ecumenical and respectful of their history.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed or edited for going off topic by discussing each other rather than the topic, flaming/goading/mocking individuals or faith groups/denominations.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

How can it be. I was water baptized as an infant but wasn't baptized until I was 39

My view is the same as Paul's however. That children are sanctified by their believing parents

Some Protestants will dunk you as many times you think you need it. And some would not accept an infant Baptism (whether that was done by Catholics or others) and so insist such a person be "re-Baptized. Catholics will only allow it once, presuming it was valid, twice if the first was known to be invalid or perhaps maybe even if there is a question about the validity. Usually the challenge to validity is in the form (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but there are other challenges that can be made - the beliefs of the people/Church performing it being one of those. Being invalid is the same as if it was never done.

So no, Catholics do not Baptize anyone twice, infant or otherwise. If joining as an adult having a prior valid Baptism (not from JW or Mormons for example) they would not allow one to get "re-Baptized even if one insisted on it. I know as I begged a little, even knowing the right answer they gave me the first time was no. We only get one shot per lifetime at that benefit and repeat cycle is not part of that offer - if it were, who would ever need to confess their sins when they could just be repeatedly washed away?

And allowing multiple Baptisms would be counter that the Christians should stop sinning. Also counter to the idea of why it is necessary and why the new believer should do it ASAP as it is literally is preparing the way for the Lord (in their hearts/temple/body) to dwell with/in them and have them be fully restored to a personal relationship with Him, which with His continued help (confession of any subsequent sin) they can stay in that relationship with Him.

Saint Paul and Saint Peter believed just as the Baptizer did that Baptism is not ceremonial ritual to make a public demonstration but actually is an application of God's Grace for the remission of all prior sins. I understand many Protestants do not agree because I use to be one. All those years though I never heard a good answer for why John the Baptizer's offer "for the remittance of sins" sounded so very different from what my Church then said Baptism was. The Catholic view sounds the same as the Baptizer's.

 

[miknik5]

Some Protestants will dunk you as many times you think you need it. And some would not accept an infant Baptism (whether that was done by Catholics or others) and so insist such a person be "re-Baptized. Catholics will only allow it once, presuming it was valid, twice if the first was known to be invalid or perhaps maybe even if there is a question about the validity. Usually the challenge to validity is in the form (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but there are other challenges that can be made - the beliefs of the people/Church performing it being one of those. Being invalid is the same as if it was never done.

So no, Catholics do not Baptize anyone twice, infant or otherwise. If joining as an adult having a prior valid Baptism (not from JW or Mormons for example) they would not allow one to get "re-Baptized even if one insisted on it. I know as I begged a little, even knowing the right answer they gave me the first time was no. We only get one shot per lifetime at that benefit and repeat cycle is not part of that offer - if it were, who would ever need to confess their sins when they could just be repeatedly washed away?

And allowing multiple Baptisms would be counter that the Christians should stop sinning. Also counter to the idea of why it is necessary and why the new believer should do it ASAP as it is literally is preparing the way for the Lord (in their hearts/temple/body) to dwell with/in them and have them be fully restored to a personal relationship with Him, which with His continued help (confession of any subsequent sin) they can stay in that relationship with Him.

Saint Paul and Saint Peter believed just as the Baptizer did that Baptism is not ceremonial ritual to make a public demonstration but actually is an application of God's Grace for the remission of all prior sins. I understand many Protestants do not agree because I use to be one. All those years though I never heard a good answer for why John the Baptizer's offer "for the remittance of sins" sounded so very different from what my Church then said Baptism was. The Catholic view sounds the same as the Baptizer's.

The difference being that CHRIST fulfilled all the temple "rituals" and requirements of that right and restored relationship with GOD

Remember, John's message began in Israel and to those who had the word of GOD and knew the requirements of the law (purification) they should have been drawn to understand that John was declaring all unclean

The Pharisees and leaders and teachers liked to hear John's message but they didn't want to wash

If they did, they would be announcing before all peoples that they too were unclean

 

[miknik5]

I mean sorry Paul. What I scanned over it seems this encyclical was for future priests and clergy and future doctors of the church

Could you show me where this was publicly distributed and announced to all men

Or could you at least show with evidence that this encyclical was meant for laymen (laity) parishioners as well and that these higher ups made it known to all men

Paul it's an encyclical addressed to higher clergy...those who are going into their studies to become priests

This was written to bishops and higher clergy in 1943

Yes, we have the internet and access to this encyclical NOW

But then, how was it made available to the laity?

The person who initially posted this encyclical was himself a seminarian

I wanted to know how the laity were encouraged to read the Bible.

To change the language from Latin so that people can read yet admit that people were illiterate how then would the encyclical have benefitted these illiterate unschooled common parishioners in 1943?

 

[miknik5]

I guess I don't know the history of the church

But I am beginning to understand the reformation now