It has been claimed that water baptism is not needed today?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
If the doctrine of Baptism by Desire and Baptism by Blood is valid, then it might be difficult to say that water Baptism is really necessary.....
No? Why?Oh, woe! How low Christianity has come to.
Water baptism was part of Christianity for 1500 years and now there is this question.
Yeah, and if the circumstances were different, they would have been baptized.Very, very few people meet the terms of Baptism by Blood or Baptism of Desire, so...
That answers the question, doesn't it?
Needful in context of what?It has been claimed that water baptism is not needed today?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
It has been claimed that water baptism is not needed today?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
It was mentioned in this post that water baptism was not required in the past and not required today either. Since the post was sketchy and a little incoherent, I asked for clarification. There is no disrespect involved in my questioning, because sometimes people have ideas which are insightful, but they just have trouble expressing them. Also, it seemed to suggest that where faith and grace were involved, people were automatically saved. Quite a good input, the idea that baptism was added to the ordo salutis as an extra step without contributing to the result:Needful in context of what?
It was claimed that it is not needed, in what context?
It was claimed, not needed today, in what context?
It has been claimed that water baptism is not needed today?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
Oh okay, it's another is it required for salvation dealio.It was mentioned in this post that water baptism was not required in the past and not required today either. Since the post was sketchy and a little incoherent, I asked for clarification. There is no disrespect involved in my questioning, because sometimes people have ideas which are insightful, but they just have trouble expressing them. Also, it seemed to suggest that where faith and grace were involved, people were automatically saved. Quite a good input, the idea that baptism was added to the ordo salutis as an extra step without contributing to the result:
The real purpose of water baptism in the NT
Quote
Faith and grace are nothing new. The people of the OT were/are saved the same way we are .... through Christ ... their faith in the promise of the Messiah to come. Baptism was not required then and is not required now to receive salvation.
It seems that John was commanded to begin baptising. The crowd was surprised, since the going wisdom was that no one could baptize unless they were the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet.
And John seems to say that he began to baptize into water (ein can mean into) because he wanted people to know what the Messiah would do: baptize into water.
It seems that baptism opened access to edification by showing God's ability to deliver a believer to the destination of being a blessing to the world. John told his questioners to live without depending on worldly methods, to depend instead of God. He was doing it, and people were asked to see the result.
But Jesus seemed to teach different. Prompting John to send a group to clarify His identity...
Very intriguing .
FWIW, every time this subject comes up, the opponents of infants and young children being baptized manage to insist that the Christians who believe in this practice (which is most of them) think that (water) Baptism is in all cases absolutely necessary for salvation OR they insist that those who believe in it think that receiving the sacrament guarantees salvation! But as with this thread here, the fact is that they have not defended either of these ideas.It was mentioned in this post that water baptism was not required in the past and not required today either. Since the post was sketchy and a little incoherent, I asked for clarification. There is no disrespect involved in my questioning, because sometimes people have ideas which are insightful, but they just have trouble expressing them. Also, it seemed to suggest that where faith and grace were involved, people were automatically saved.
It has been claimed that water baptism is not needed today?
What do you think?
If yes why?
If no why?
Water baptism was required for the Jews to be saved under the Gospel of the Kingdom. Gentiles were always excluded from salvation then in time past, we were without God and without hope. (Ephesians 2:11-12)
But now, a new Gospel has been revealed to Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, where salvation can now be for the Gentiles thru faith alone in Christ's death burial and resurrection. Water baptism is no longer required under this new Gospel.
Of course, you can still go ahead and be water baptized as a public declaration of faith to your unsaved family and friends, but its like speaking in tongue or tithing. Even if you don't speak in tongues or tithe, you are still saved.
It was used for to make people disciples of Jesus. I think we should continue to do that.
Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Mat. 28:19-20
Why were the people of Jerusalem afraid to join the Body of Christ?
Acts 5
13But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.