Is water Baptism essential for salvation?

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But neither does this mean that any believer does right to purposely, intentionally, avoid Baptism.

Wrong church. wrong people, I never go under water, does not make sense....lots of reasons.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a few posts ago you said that babies were sinless. Now you are saying that no one is sinless.

Which is it?

Both. Man is born into sin like a fish born in water.
Not one is dry, no not one.
But sin is a personal thing between you and God.
Babies, not knowing the law, are in sin, but not
accountable for their sin. This includes "Spiritual
Babies" as well.

James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do
and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

Unless Babies are physically cradled by God at birth,
they are born into sin.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Wrong church. wrong people, I never go under water, does not make sense....lots of reasons.
Did you mean to say "wrong every church?"

Of the estimated 33,000 Christian denominations, "No Baptism" is part of the doctrinal perspective of...2 of them.

You're in rather exclusive company.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did you mean to say "wrong every church?"
Of the estimated 33,000 Christian denominations, "No Baptism" is part of the doctrinal perspective of...2 of them.You're in rather exclusive company.

Wrong church for me. Weird ideas, bad children, no bibles.
Almost the most liberal there is. As a result, I don't feel
at home in churches that don't give each other backrubs
or feet washings or sing Kumbaya-my-Lord campfire songs
now that I've left them.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No. They don't. At least, those methods are not "common" with them--and that's what you claimed.

I have never attended a baptism without cloth or sprinkling.
Ohh. No... yes i did once.
I don't know if Catholics or Lutherans have a tank.
That a good size group.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Both. Man is born into sin like a fish born in water.
Not one is dry, no not one.
But sin is a personal thing between you and God.
Babies, not knowing the law, are in sin, but not
accountable for their sin. This includes "Spiritual
Babies" as well.

James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do
and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

Unless Babies are physically cradled by God at birth,
they are born into sin.

The statement made by Seabass to which I was responding was "Infants are born without sin therefore again, they are not candidates for baptism." I disagree with him on that; my reply was that babies are born with a sinful nature.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have never attended a baptism without cloth or sprinkling.
Ohh. No... yes i did once.
I don't know if Catholics or Lutherans have a tank.
That a good size group.
They don't use the Baptist-type tank, but in neither of those churches is it standard practice to use sprinkling or a dampened cloth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PropheticTimes

Lord Have Mercy
Supporter
Dec 17, 2015
955
1,316
Ohio
✟204,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But here's the issue that is often missed in these kinds of debates--

Baptism is not absolutely essential to salvation. Any of the major denominations that practice and value baptism will admit to that. There are exceptions caused by unusual and unavoidable circumstances.

But neither does this mean that any believer does right to purposely, intentionally, avoid Baptism.

I have never intentionally avoided it. Actually, if I had the opportunity I would take it, and when I have the opportunity I WILL take it. I am not, however, fearful about my salvation, because I know I am saved. What is irksome is others telling me that I am unsaved when they know nothing of my relationship with the Lord, simply due to the lack of water baptism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archivist
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have never intentionally avoided it.
I had no one in particular in mind when I made that observation, you understand, but there are a number of people who have posted that they don't need it, don't value it, don't think it does anything, and are definitely not going to avail themselves of Baptism.

What is irksome is others telling me that I am unsaved when they know nothing of my relationship with the Lord, simply due to the lack of water baptism.
I seem to be asking this question a lot lately, so forgive me, but who (or what denominations) say that?
 
Upvote 0

PropheticTimes

Lord Have Mercy
Supporter
Dec 17, 2015
955
1,316
Ohio
✟204,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I had no one in particular in mind when I made that observation, you understand, but there are a number of people who have posted that they don't need it, don't value it, don't think it does anything, and are definitely not going to avail themselves of Baptism.

Completely understood.

I seem to be asking this question a lot lately, so forgive me, but who (or what denominations) say that?

I have not noticed it to be a certain denomination, just people from time to time, such as TheSeabass. I have come across it in others from time to time and I simply find it to be blindly judgmental and arrogant.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have not noticed it to be a certain denomination, just people from time to time, such as TheSeabass.
That's similar to what I've noticed. The typical proponent of that idea lists no church affiliation here on CR, and that most often means that they're a lone wolf kind of Christian. In other words, almost the whole of the Christian world has one POV about this matter, but there are also individuals who have their own contrary thoughts on the subject. That's fine, so long as everyone keeps things in perspective.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
True, and all that this proves is that those verses in which we see someone preaching to an adult (who then is baptized) do not cover infants or young children. The speaker is addressing an adult about his decision. It does not show that anyone else is excluded from Baptism.

Peter was addressing the men of Israel who had committed sin (crucifying the Christ) Acts 2:22-35. Concluding his words in Acts 2:36 with "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,..." . And in verse 41 "Then they that gladly received his word.."

Peter was addressing adults that 1) committed a sin and 2) had the cognitive skills to "know" and "receive" what Peter preached. "Know" is ginōskō meaning to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of. They would not have received Peter's word if they did not know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Why, how would they been have been baptized (verse 41) if they could not know/understand what Peter was saying?

It is evident, obvious that Peter was not addressing infants for 1) infants cannot commit sin and 2) do not have the ability to know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Infants do not even have a grasp of language skills much less cognitive skills required to know/understand/believe. It would also exclude those with severe mental disabilities for they are in an innocent state as infants not capable of sinning for they are not capable of knowing/understanding.

And since baptism is for the remission of sins and infants have no sins, then logic dictates that baptism is not for infants.

Albion said:
That's rather a stretch, but what about "whole households" being baptized? Is there a special excuse for that verse and that situation?

It is very common in the bible that descendants, future generations are referred to as children. Israel is referred to as Abraham's 'children' but the nation of Israel was not a nation of infants.
Isaiah 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Infants are not being considered as the future seed but the seed refers to future generations.
Even Albert Barnes says of Acts 2:39 (my emp) "In these and similar places their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer merely to children as children, and should not be adduced as applicable exclusively to infants. It is a promise to parents that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity. Under this promise parents may be encouraged to train up their children for God; they are authorized to devote them to him in the ordinance of Christian baptism, and they may trust in his gracious purpose thus to perpetuate the blessings of salvation from age to age."


Albion said:
It certainly does. See below.

David did not say he was born a sinner. The NIV perverts the verse.

KJV - Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NIV - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

A world of difference between a accurate translation as the KJV and a purposefully corrupt translation as the NIV. The NIV should not even be seen as the bible, God's word. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to change God's doctrines, an attempt to force Calvinism into God's word.

"Shapen in iniquity" is NOT the same as "I was sinful at birth"

The bible describes the world as a place full of sin and iniquity. Therefore everyone has been shapened, conceived, born into an environment full of iniquity and sin. My mother could have given birth to me while on a trip to China. I would have been born into an environment full of Chinese customs, language, food and people but being born in China would not make me Chinese no more than being born into an environment full of sin and iniquity makes me a sinner.

Similar language in Acts 2:8. After the Apostles spoke in various languages verse 8 says "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" If I had been there at that time, I would have said I heard the Apostles speak in the English language wherein I was born. This does not mean I was born speaking the English language, but I was born in an environment where English was spoken and in time I learned to speak it myself. Likewise we are born into a sinful world not knowing right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) but in time upon learning right from wrong one becomes accountable to God's laws and THEN sins by transgressing that law.

Furthermore, John says sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not a gene passed from one to another nor a sickness no just an idea that is passed from one to another. A transgression must be committed for sin to exist. This makes the idea of original sin impossible. A new born must have committed a transgression for it to be a sinner. What transgression did the new born commit? Lie? Steal? Adultery? Murder? Infants are not capable of sinning therefore the NIV is corrupt and put words into David's mouth he never said.

Lastly;
in sin did my mother conceive me

David is talking about the sin of his mother here if anything at all.

in sin did my mother conceive me
in a drunken rage a husband beat his wife

Who was in sin? The mother not the infant. Who was in a drunken rage? the husband, not the wife. The NIV perverts the verse by taking the sin from the mother and putting upon the the infant.

Psalms 139:14 "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

David was NOT praising God for making him a vile, lost reprobate at birth.


Albion said:
Then, by being born, you are automatically changed from in sin to being sinless? What sense is there in that theory?

I asked the following "Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."

Therefore if Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 teach original sin then does one become a sinner at conception or does one not become a sinner until he is born?

Once you decide if one becomes a sinner at conception or at birth, then we can discuss what transgression was committed a conception or at birth making one a sinner.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Peter was addressing the men of Israel who had committed sin (crucifying the Christ) Acts 2:22-35. Concluding his words in Acts 2:36 with "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,..." . And in verse 41 "Then they that gladly received his word.."

Peter was addressing adults that 1) committed a sin and 2) had the cognitive skills to "know" and "receive" what Peter preached. "Know" is ginōskō meaning to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of.
Nothing so far in this conflicts with what I wrote. If anything, it confirms it.

It is evident, obvious that Peter was not addressing infants for 1) infants cannot commit sin and 2) do not have the ability to know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying.
I SAID that infants were not covered by those words. They were intended for the ears of grown men and spoke to that situation. BUT this does not mean that infants and youngsters were being excluded from the sacrament. On the contrary, we know from the NT that they were baptized.
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Nothing so far in this conflicts with what I wrote. If anything, it confirms it.


You earlier posted "It does not show that anyone else is excluded from Baptism."
Obviously infants and the mentally impaired are excluded.

Albion said:
I SAID that infants were not covered by those words. They were intended for the ears of grown men and spoke to that situation. BUT this does not mean that infants and youngsters were being excluded from the sacrament. On the contrary, we know from the NT that they were baptized.

This is contradictory.

You first say "infants were not covered by those words" but then say "infants and youngsters were (not) being excluded"

So were infants not covered/excluded or were they included by those words?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You earlier posted "It does not show that anyone else is excluded from Baptism."
Obviously infants and the mentally impaired are excluded.
Obviously, they are not. They are excluded from the audience in that particular verse, but not from the sacrament of Baptism. Such is the kind of sloppy exegesis that people do and then wind up with them insisting that the Bible says X and that everyone else is wrong or even against the truth...but they themselves have simply misunderstood what they read.

This is contradictory.

You first say "infants were not covered by those words" but then say "infants and youngsters were (not) being excluded"

So were infants not covered/excluded or were they included by those words?
Do you see now how confused you've been?
 
Upvote 0

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
But the earlier statement was that the Bible is the source of the Truth. That is wrong. The Bible only tells us of the Truth. It is Jesus who is the source of the Truth. John 14:6: Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." Jesus is the Word. Jesus is not the Bible. Jesus was before the Bible. Jesus will be after the Bible.

John 1:1,14 Jesus is the word. Jesus left the earth some 2000 years ago leaving behind His written word, the bible. So the written word, the bible, is the only source of God's truth in the world today.
Men do not create truth, the church does not create truth, God's truth comes from God and God alone.

Men can have meetings and counsels but they can never create any truth that God has not already given us in the written word, they can only create FALSE UNINSPIRED teachings.

Are you Catholic?


Archivist said:
In other words, you have the Truth, and anyone who disagrees with you does not have the Truth.

The bible has truth and I must follow the bible if I am to know truth. I know that truth can never be found among all the 1000's of religious groups that all contradict each other.


Archivist said:
Of course you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture. But this is just interpretation. Most Christians practice infant baptism and would disagree with you.

It comes down to who can prove their interpretation to be the correct one following proper rules of exegesis - logic.

Therefore Christianity is not, never has been made up of varying contradicting interpretation with all those interpretations being right. The contradictions prove most are wrong.

And why single me out? The faith onlyist here, the Calvinists, the Catholics here all will claim they have the correct interpretation and others are wrong. They would be just as guilty of what you charge me.


Archivist said:
Logical fallacy as you cannot empty a can without opening it.

Correct.

So if I said "he that openeth the can and empties it out shall have soup to eat".

The logical order, the logical progression of the statement has "opening" BEFORE "emptying" without me having to say "he that first opens the can and then empties the can"


Archivist said:
If I were to say that if you don't drive or fly then to get to Chicago you have to take a train and a bus, that does not in any way imply which you would take first. "He that believes and is baptized" likewise dose not imply that one must believe before being baptized.

Your statement does not contain a logical progression of steps as my did or the Lord's sis in Mark 16:16a.

The fact Christ put "believeth" BEFORE "baptism" means belief come before baptism. He created a logical sequence of steps, a logical order of events that first step must be done before going to the next step.


If there is no logical sequence, no logical order of steps to be taken then one can read the verse "he that is baptized and believes shall be saved". This would not be posible for an unbeliever - atheist would not be baptized.


Archivist said:
Of course you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture. But this is just interpretation. Most Christians practice infant baptism and would disagree with you.

You did not prove my interpretation to be wrong nor yours to be right.

I asked a simple question that you did not even answer. Original sin has a contradiction right off the bat.

I asked:
I asked the following "Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheSeabass

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2015
1,855
358
✟47,754.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Obviously, they are not. They are excluded from the audience in that particular verse, but not from the sacrament of Baptism. Such is the kind of sloppy exegesis that people do and then wind up with them insisting that the Bible says X and that everyone else is wrong or even against the truth...but they themselves have simply misunderstood what they read.


Do you see now how confused you've been?

There is nothing in the context that requires infants to be baptized.

--Infants had not committed ant sin, adults had
--Infants could not understand what was being preached or commanded, adults could
--Baptism is for remission of sins, infants had no sin nor were they convicted of original sin by Peter where they needed to be baptized for remission of sins.

It makes no logically sense to preach where infants are not included in the audience hearing what is being preached yet infants are still accountable to what is preached.

The infants were either amenable to what was being preached therefore included in the audience
or
they were not amenable to what was preached and not part of the audience.

You cannot have them both not amenable (not part of the audience the sermon was directed to) and amenable (accountable to what was preached to the audience) at the same time.

It is correct to say I am confused....confused by the logical fallacy of your argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0