Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

[1213]

Is water baptism a requirment to be saved

Sorry, if this was already said, but I think this proves that physical water is not necessary:


And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Luke 23:43

That person was not baptized with physical water.

 

[TheSeabass]

I'm afraid you're taking that verse and separating it from it's context. that verse is connected to an entire discourse about Christ death which marked the new covenant in His blood with Him becoming our high priest. this in regard to the forgiveness of sin through Christ sacrifice. the paragraph containing this verse ends in saying that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sins.

It is not dealing with the validity of new testament law at all.

The context of Hebrews chapter 9, the Hebrew writer is showing the differences between the OT and the NT... giving a description of how those OT rites were performed then showing how the blood of Christ is superior to those of animal sacrifices Heb 9:1-15. Then in verses 16 and 17 shows how those under the OT (as us today) still required the blood of Christ to have all sins remitted completely. The OT needed to be cancelled out to bring in the NT where all men's sins can be cleansed away by the blood of Christ.

Verse 17 categorically states "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." The language cannot be more plain and simple. Even wills/testaments today operate under this very same standard. Therefore the 'thief argument' is dead. I see you continue to look for ways around this, but there is no way to get around the simple words, meaning of Heb 9:16,17. You are removing it from its context for you are trying to find a way to get the thief saved under the NT without being baptized to satisfy your theological bias.

 

[miknik5]

There is no verse that says no one could be born again with John's baptism. From the context of John 3, John's water baptism was how Nicodemus could be born again, yet Pharisees rejected John's baptism Luke 7:30 leaving him not born again.

Yes there is Acts 19

 

[Vicomte13]

The plain fact is that you cannot claim to have faith - then refuse to be Baptized and expect to be saved.

Refusal to be baptized would be a strange thing to do for somebody who said he was following Christ, given that Christ did it, said to do it, had his Apostles do it. To refuse would be to intentionally not follow Christ.

I've never heard of a Christian who refused to be baptized. Have you?

The conversation about whether it's "necessary" is usually motivated by a concern for the unbaptized of the world (which is most of the world). Are they all certainly doomed to the fires of Gehenna or the Lake of Fire at the end? No. God will decide each case separately based on all of the facts and circumstances.

But for those who say they follow Christ, Jesus himself asked "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you don't keep my commandments?" Getting baptized in water was quite basic among those instructions, and in his personal example too, so it would not be possible to argue that it wasn't important to do.

I think that's where things get tangled up. CAN God give a favorable final judgment to somebody who is unbaptized? Of course. But the Christian who refuses to be baptized isn't really a Christian at all, is he? Rather, he is a more defiant type. And for what? Baptism is not exactly an expensive or painful deal. It's not like having to be circumcised, for example.

 

[Philip_B]

Yes there is Acts 19

However I don't think that I accept that the baptism inferred in John 3 is John the Baptizer's Baptism.

 

[TheSeabass]

Yes there is Acts 19

In Acts 19, John's baptism had already expired and replaced with Christ's baptism, therefore those Ephesians were born again when water baptized in the name of the Lord Acts 19:5.


Yet back when John's baptism was still in effect, one could be born again with his baptism.

 

[Philip_B]

Have we no sense of eschatology. All that was eternal in Christ confronts all that is in time. This is the great meeting of time and eternity. I think we need to make sure that we do not try and time bind eternity, so much as release the temporal for the eternal.

all that was true at first is true at last, but there is no way back into the past, but through the future​

 

[Vicomte13]

Pharisees as Nicodemus, rejected John's baptism Luke 7:30 leaving them not born again.

Be careful about that. Nicodemus was the priest who came into Jesus' tomb with Joseph of Arimathea and performed the holy last rites of Judaism for Jesus. Doing so, after the man had been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, indicates that actually Nicodemus DID become a follower of Jesus.

 

[redleghunter]

Peter is telling his readers that your reward cannot be taken away - UNLESS we lose faith.

I agree. We should now look for examples of such loss of faith. The apostate verses come to mind and you already posted them.

 

[miknik5]

However I don't think that I accept that the baptism inferred in John 3 is John the Baptizer's Baptism.

It never was meant to be "John's baptism"

 

[redleghunter]

An obedient faith, not a faith only.

A valid observation. Faith implies faithfulness.

Look at marriage. We make a commitment to our spouse, we say the words and then we are to keep those words. Thus a faithful marriage.

 

[miknik5]

Be careful about that. Nicodemus was the priest who came into Jesus' tomb with Joseph of Arimathea and performed the holy last rites of Judaism for Jesus. Doing so, after the man had been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, indicates that actually Nicodemus DID become a follower of Jesus.

And...,wasnt in the least concerned that being in contact with jesus' body would make him unclean

He certainly DID believe that CHRIST was exactly who HE said HE is

 

[miknik5]

However I don't think that I accept that the baptism inferred in John 3 is John the Baptizer's Baptism.

Could you tell that to SeaBass

I have NO PROBLEM agreeing with you at all

John's baptism had nothing to do with anything other than to declare all unclean and to point all to repentence because of THE ONE who was coming who would baptize with THE HOLY SPIRIT

JESUS certainly wasn't telling i codes s to believe in John and that in order for him to be born again he had to be baptized into John's baptism

 

[miknik5]

if anyone started boasting that they had been baptized by John you can bet that John would have mimicked Paul's same response to the church at Corinth

Did I die for you?
Were you baptized into me?

 

[redleghunter]

John's baptism was to point all to Christ

I would say John's baptism was to prepare people for Christ.

 

[miknik5]

I would say John's baptism was to prepare people for Christ.

Okay. I see. And agree

Me too

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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

So we agree then that the establishment of a Baptism in Christianity was not a new ceremony, but rather actually something which applied a gift from God. I agree many leaders of the day would not think they needed remissions of their sins or perhaps that they sinned at all.

I don't see how this reply above helps the point being rejected in a prior reply, which was addressed to my defense against the idea that someone needs two Baptisms unless the first one was invalid somehow. So am unclear what the point here is except perhaps agreement that God through a valid Baptism actually does something for the believer, just as the John the Baptizer describes it- for the remissions of sins (plural and without condition, so all prior sins). There is no explanation possible that it is not from God. We cannot say it is the act of dipping in water or something about the person or place where it is done.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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

Since this post was specifically directed to a non-Catholic and talking about a conversation he was having with another Catholic, my guess would be two Catholics were involved. Am uncertain why there would be confusion about that.

Am also unclear why/how anyone reading this thread would confuse including you as being a part of that particular exchange or a Catholic.

 

[miknik5]

So we agree then that the establishment of a Baptism in Christianity was not a new ceremony, but rather actually something which applied a gift from God. I agree many leaders of the day would not think they needed remissions of their sins or perhaps that they sinned at all.

I don't see how this reply above helps the point being rejected in a prior reply, which was addressed to my defense against the idea that someone needs two Baptisms unless the first one was invalid somehow. So am unclear what the point here is except perhaps agreement that God through a valid Baptism actually does something for the believer, just as the John the Baptizer describes it- for the remissions of sins (plural and without condition, so all prior sins). There is no explanation possible that it is not from God. We cannot say it is the act of dipping in water or something about the person or place where it is done.

I don't know what post you are referring to but I agree with your recent post. If I was somehow responsible for causing you confusion, sorry.

 

[TheSeabass]

Be careful about that. Nicodemus was the priest who came into Jesus' tomb with Joseph of Arimathea and performed the holy last rites of Judaism for Jesus. Doing so, after the man had been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy, indicates that actually Nicodemus DID become a follower of Jesus.

He was not a follower of Christ at the time on John 3