Is baptism a requirement?

rturner76 said:

Baptism brings into the Christian community, washes away your sin, and imparts the Holy Spirit unto you. I'd hardly say baptism does nothing for your salvation.

Click to expand...

Our sins are washed away the moment we repent of our sins and turn to Christ in faith....

The Holy Spirit is received when we believe in Christ.....

swordsman1 said:

Yes but of the five Sola's "Sola Fide" is the only requirement by us for salvation. We are saved by faith and faith alone, not faith + baptism, as the verses I previously quoted clearly state. Baptism contributes nothing to our salvation.

Click to expand...

Why do people keep making this point that isn't in question? None of us, to my recollection, and certainly not I myself, have argued that baptism either guarantees salvation or that it is always necessary for salvation.

swordsman1 said:

Yes but of the five Sola's "Sola Fide" is the only requirement by us for salvation. We are saved by faith and faith alone, not faith + baptism, as the verses I previously quoted clearly state. Baptism contributes nothing to our salvation.

Baptism is a valuable ordinance commanded after a person is saved, as shown by the patterns of baptism described in scripture. There are numerous reasons for being baptised, but a contribution to salvation is not one of them. There is nothing magical that happens when we are baptised such as receiving the Holy Spirit or being cleansed from sin.



Ephesians 5:26 makes no mention of baptism. The ordinance has to be read into the text, which is not sound exegesis. If Paul was referring to baptism he would undoubtedly have used that word.

More likely, "washing of water by the word" is a metaphor for the cleansing effect of the God's word. cf. John 15:3, "you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you". Paul is comparing the sanctifying effect of God's word with washing with water, and specifically the bridal bath which Jewish brides undertook before their wedding. Remember the context of this verse is the relationship between husbands and wives, and the subsequent verses clearly allude to the church being the "bride of Christ".

Also notice the whole church here is pictured as being washed, whereas baptism is a rite only for the individual - a further indication that Paul is not referring to baptism here. It is people who are baptised, not the church as a whole.

Note also that the water described here is used for washing, but the water in Christian baptism is never used for washing, nor is it ever used as such in scripture accounts. When I stepped into the baptistry pool 22 years ago, I never took a bar of soap with me!

It is not the waters of baptism that washes away sin, it is the blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:7) and baptism is only a symbol of that true cleansing.

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that sins are washed away the moment we repent of our sins and turn to Christ in faith....

Acts 3:19 "Repent, then, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out"

Acts 10:43 "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

Luke 24:47 "repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations"

Acts 5:31 "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Saviour that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins."

Acts 13:37-38 "I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin"

Luke 5:20 Seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.”​

Although at first glance 1 Peter 3:21 appears to say that baptism is salvific ("baptism now saves you"), that cannot be the literal meaning because it would contradict the dozens of other verses that say salvation is attained when a person puts their faith in Christ. And there can be no contradictions in scripture. (See Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 3:16; 6:36; 5:24; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47; 11:25-26; 20:31; Acts 2:21; 10:43; 13:39; 16:30-31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22; 2:16; Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:8; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 15:2; Phil. 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:10; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5; 1:9; 1 John 5:13)

Peter is not saying that the act of baptism provides salvation. It is not the outward physical ceremony of baptism that saves, but rather the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents. Peter makes this clear by saying that baptism is not the removal of filth from the flesh (ie. cleansing of sin), but rather an appeal to God for a clear conscience. ie what saves is crying out to the Lord for forgiveness because "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10:13) and that occurs before baptism. The saving is done “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” and not “through water”. Notice Peter's analogy to Noah's ark. It was boarding the ark that saved Noah from divine wrath, not being immersed in flood water. The ark is a type of Christ, a picture of the means of being saved by putting our trust in Christ. And Peter says that baptism is a similar corresponding type, "Corresponding to that, baptism...". So baptism too is an external picture of the inward reality of salvation.

See also...
Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org



Neither of those verses make any mention of baptism.

Click to expand...

Rather than going point by point, I feel it sufficient to say that the problem I have with what you are saying fundamentally boils down to your pitting Scripture against Scripture. You have a set of key passages that you look to, and any passages which challenge how you understand those passages thus has to be re-interpreted to mean things other than what they plainly say.

Paul says "washed with water with the word" in Ephesians 5:26. He says "water". Why did he say "water" unless he meant water?

Your opposition to the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 boils down to, "It can't mean what it seems to be saying, because that would contradict my understanding of salvation by faith alone".

What if I told you that baptismal regeneration and Faith Alone are not mutually exclusive? And not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are mutually true together: Because faith is not a work we do for God, but a gift God works and creates in us--which He accomplishes by His own grace and power working through God's word.

For example, your objection to Ephesians 5:26 being about baptism includes pointing out that it says the whole Church is cleansed, and that this therefore can't be a reference to Baptism. But this is only because you bring in your own assumptions into the equation. As this is addressed simply: Since the Church is comprised of baptized people, not unbaptized people, then the objection is quite moot.

If Baptism is the ordinary means which Christ has instituted for His Church through which a person becomes a member of Christ's Body, His Church, then of course the whole Church is cleansed by the waters of Baptism--because the Church is constituted by those who are baptized.

You refer to Baptism as an ordinance, thereby you see Baptism as a work we do. And thus you view Baptism as a "work", and since we see in Ephesians 2:9 and elsewhere that our works do not merit our justification, you dismiss Baptism as being a Means of Grace, a work of God rather than man.

And I suspect that this comes from a deeper theological assumption on your part: That visible, tangible, or otherwise material things have no spiritual value: God's works are invisible, not visible; and thus salvation must likewise be entirely invisible--a mystical and invisible thing that happens between the individual and God in a purely esoteric--interior to the self--way. Thus you demarcate the difference between God's works and human works on the basis of whether they are visible or invisible: Baptism is a visible thing, therefore it must be a human work; whereas salvation is an invisible thing, and God only does invisible things. If I am mistaken in making this assumption about your position, I welcome correction and clarification.

But continuing in that theme, I believe it's an inherently false and unbiblical paradigm, it is a lingering Gnosticism--a denial of the God-approved and good visible, material universe of physical matter as being a valid means of God's gracious work. This is why the ancient Gnostics argued that there could be no resurrection of the body, why they argued that the world of matter was evil, and why they rejected the Sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism as of any value. Even saying that Christ had no human flesh at all, but only seemed to be a solid and physical human being (Docetism).

But the Gospel destroys Gnosticism: God became flesh. Our salvation is accomplished through visible means, God's grace is visible, tangible: Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, He rose from the dead bodily, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again--bodily and visibly--to judge the living and the dead, and God will make all things new: New heavens and new earth, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

-CryptoLutheran

Albion said:

Why do people keep making this point that isn't in question? None of us, to my recollection, and certainly not I myself, have argued that baptism either guarantees salvation or that it is always necessary for salvation.

Click to expand...

So far on this thread we've had claims that baptism...

• imparts the Holy Spirit
• causes us to be born again
• cleanses us from sin
• provides forgiveness of sin

Are these not all essential ingredients of salvation, of which if we lack any one means we are not saved?

swordsman1 said:

So far on this thread we've had the claims that baptism...

• imparts the Holy Spirit
• causes us to be born again
• cleanses us from sin
• provides forgiveness of sin

Click to expand...

• Okay, but that doesn't affect what you quoted from my post.

Are these not all essential ingredients of salvation, which if we lack any one means we are not saved?

Click to expand...

When it is claimed that churches or Christians, etc. believe that receiving Baptism or the Lord's Supper is absolutely required for salvation or that these sacraments, once received, guarantee salvation no matter what...the issue has been altered.

ViaCrucis said:

Rather than going point by point, I feel it sufficient to say that the problem I have with what you are saying fundamentally boils down to your pitting Scripture against Scripture. You have a set of key passages that you look to, and any passages which challenge how you understand those passages thus has to be re-interpreted to mean things other than what they plainly say.

Click to expand...

Scripture must be interpreted in the light of other scripture. That is one of the tenets of biblical hermeneutics. If there is an interpretation of a verse that claims to support a particular theory but there are a dozen other verses that clearly contradict that theory, then we can be sure that particular interpretation is wrong.

ViaCrucis said:

Paul says "washed with water with the word" in Ephesians 5:26. He says "water". Why did he say "water" unless he meant water?

Click to expand...

He did mean water, but just because Paul mentions water doesn't mean it must automatically be the waters of baptism. There is no mention of baptism in this verse, it has to be read into the text. I gave a far more plausible interpretation in my previous post.

ViaCrucis said:

Your opposition to the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21 boils down to, "It can't mean what it seems to be saying, because that would contradict my understanding of salvation by faith alone".

Click to expand...

No, my opposition to your interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21 is not because it contradicts my understating of salvation by faith alone, but because it contradicts a multitude of other scriptures.

ViaCrucis said:

For example, your objection to Ephesians 5:26 being about baptism includes pointing out that it says the whole Church is cleansed, and that this therefore can't be a reference to Baptism. But this is only because you bring in your own assumptions into the equation. As this is addressed simply: Since the Church is comprised of baptized people, not unbaptized people, then the objection is quite moot.

If Baptism is the ordinary means which Christ has instituted for His Church through which a person becomes a member of Christ's Body, His Church, then of course the whole Church is cleansed by the waters of Baptism--because the Church is constituted by those who are baptized.

Click to expand...

That of course was only one of my supplemental arguments against your interpretation of Eph 5:26. My point being that Christ is pictured here as cleansing the Church as a single body, whereas in scripture people are baptised individually one by one. Baptism is a personal action not a corporate one.

ViaCrucis said:

You refer to Baptism as an ordinance, thereby you see Baptism as a work we do. And thus you view Baptism as a "work", and since we see in Ephesians 2:9 and elsewhere that our works do not merit our justification, you dismiss Baptism as being a Means of Grace, a work of God rather than man.

Click to expand...

I have made no comment about baptism being a "work" and made no reference to Eph 2:9. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman by any chance?

ViaCrucis said:

And I suspect that this comes from a deeper theological assumption on your part: That visible, tangible, or otherwise material things have no spiritual value: God's works are invisible, not visible; and thus salvation must likewise be entirely invisible--a mystical and invisible thing that happens between the individual and God in a purely esoteric--interior to the self--way. Thus you demarcate the difference between God's works and human works on the basis of whether they are visible or invisible: Baptism is a visible thing, therefore it must be a human work; whereas salvation is an invisible thing, and God only does invisible things. If I am mistaken in making this assumption about your position, I welcome correction and clarification.

But continuing in that theme, I believe it's an inherently false and unbiblical paradigm, it is a lingering Gnosticism--a denial of the God-approved and good visible, material universe of physical matter as being a valid means of God's gracious work. This is why the ancient Gnostics argued that there could be no resurrection of the body, why they argued that the world of matter was evil, and why they rejected the Sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism as of any value. Even saying that Christ had no human flesh at all, but only seemed to be a solid and physical human being (Docetism).

But the Gospel destroys Gnosticism: God became flesh. Our salvation is accomplished through visible means, God's grace is visible, tangible: Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, He rose from the dead bodily, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again--bodily and visibly--to judge the living and the dead, and God will make all things new: New heavens and new earth, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Click to expand...

No, I am not a Gnostic. Baptism being a physical activity is not my beef with BR. My problem with BR is that it is unbiblical. If there were a number of verses that clearly state that baptism confers some aspect of salvation then I would happily accept it. After all that would be a doctrine that would not impact me personally as I have already been baptised. But having examined the verses and associated interpretations that advocates of BR supply, I am not convinced at all. At best they are dubious interpretations of difficult verses that could be read in a number of ways (hence not a proof text), or worse they are outright fallacies where baptism is never even mentioned, and has to be read into the text using eisegesis. The notions suggested by BR are contradicted by other scriptures (en masse).

One of the important significances of baptism is that it signifies a switch from an old covenant (which is born with a gentile) to the New Covenant.

Similarly, circumcision signifies a switch of an older gentile covenant to a Jewish covenant. The earliest moment for such a switch is on the eighth day after birth of a male Jew.

On the other hand, the New Covenant is about a subjective judgment carried out by Jesus as the Judge. It is forgivable if by the best judgment of Jesus that you are not given a chance or choice to be baptized by your own will, such as the theft on the cross.

Hawkins said:

On the other hand, the New Covenant is about a subjective judgment carried out by Jesus as the Judge. It is forgivable if by the best judgment of Jesus that you are not given a chance or choice to be baptized by your own will, such as the theft on the cross.

Click to expand...

But there is no reason to think that Jesus Christ, who personally commissioned his followers to baptize all nations, was setting any of that aside just because he made a one-time acceptance of the Good Thief who approached him in person, which none of us can do.

Albion said:

But there is no reason to think that Jesus Christ, who personally commissioned his followers to baptize all nations, was setting any of that aside just because he made a one-time acceptance of the Good Thief who approached him in person, which none of us can do.

Click to expand...

What I meant to say is, the thief is forgivable because he doesn't have a chance to be baptized. Under the circumstance a fair God which is Jesus can choose to accept him by His own judgment. The thief is not a study model, he's rather an exception for us to view the New Covenant as a lawful/legal document, and a standard which Jesus will adapt on the Judgment Day.

That is,
1) Jesus has the right to judge whether your lack of a baptism is justified.
2) He justifies based on the situation that whether you are willing to be baptized but lack a chance, or you are unwilling to be baptized.
3) The New Covenant requires everyone to be baptized, however exception can be granted by Jesus but not arbitrarily.

As far as I know, the liturgical churches will provide a Christian burial for those who were catechumens but died before baptism or confirmation.

Hawkins said:

What I meant to say is, the thief is forgivable because he doesn't have a chance to be baptized. Under the circumstance a fair God which is Jesus can choose to accept him by His own judgment. The thief is not a study model, he's rather an exception for us to view the New Covenant as a lawful/legal document, and a standard which Jesus will adapt on the Judgment Day.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It seems that few people who bring that event up in the course of discussing infant baptism, etc. look at the matter with the care that you have taken.

Of course, the churches which see Baptism as a sacrament rather than as a gesture on the part of the applicant do not, as some of those folks think, assert that receiving it is absolutely and always necessary for salvation.

So the approach of those churches is similar to what you've outlined, and the exchange between Christ and the Thief does not "prove" that Baptism is nice if you want to do it, and it has good symbolism, but otherwise, well....

rturner76 said:

To become a member of the Christian Church, must you be baptized with water?

What constitutes a proper baptism?

If it is NOT required, what is, and what does baptism do or what is the meaning of it?

Click to expand...

Under the gospel of the kingdom preached to Israel only, water baptism is a requirement for salvation. Israel as a nation was supposed to accept Jesus as their Messiah and be ushered into their promised kingdom where Jesus will rule over them from David's throne in Jerusalem.

Then Israel will become a kingdom of priest, in order to be a priest, every Jew MUST be baptized (Exodus 19:4-6)

Once that happen, then every Jew will be responsible to spread the gospel to every Gentile nation under the Earth. There are a number of OT passages that talk about this prophetic timetable, the most beautiful to me is found in Zechariah 8

3 Thus saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.

7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;

8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.

20 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities:

21 And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord, and to seek the Lord of hosts: I will go also.

22 Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.

23 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
====

But as we can all see by Acts 7, Israel has rejected their King, they even stoned Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit. When that happened, Jesus saved Saul and revealed to him a mystery, that because of Israel's rejection, all the Gentiles can now be saved without them (Romans 9 to Romans 11).

How does one get saved now? That is thru 1 Cor 15:1-4. Water baptism is no longer required for anything under this mystery grace dispensation.

Guojing said:

How does one get saved now? That is thru 1 Cor 15:1-4. Water baptism is no longer required for anything under this mystery grace dispensation.

Click to expand...

And yet the New Testament is very clear that it is to be received (Baptism) if at all possible. Your message seemed to say that it was dispensed with.

Albion said:

And yet the New Testament is very clear that it is to be received (Baptism) if at all possible. Your message seemed to say that it was dispensed with.

Click to expand...

Well, you do agree that animal sacrifices were required for sins committed before, but now it was dispensed with correct?

So there were requirements in the past, even in the NT, that no longer apply now, no big deal about that.

Guojing said:

Well, you do agree that animal sacrifices were required for sins committed before, but now it was dispensed with correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no connection.

So there were requirements in the past that no longer apply now, no big deal about that.

Click to expand...

that's correct. It just doesn't have anything to do with Christian baptism, yet that was the focus of your message.

Albion said:

Yes, but there is no connection.



that's correct. It just doesn't have anything to do with Christian baptism, yet that was the focus of your message.

Click to expand...

Do you agree, in the first place, that Israel and Christian are not equivalent terms?

Guojing said:

Do you agree, in the first place, that Israel and Christian are not equivalent terms?

Click to expand...

What's the point you are working towards?

Albion said:

What's the point you are working towards?

Click to expand...

Water baptism is required for the nation of Israel under the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

For us gentiles, the baptism that is given to us, when we believe in Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is Holy Spirit baptism (Ephesians 4:5). We become Christians after that (Acts 11:26).

Guojing said:

Water baptism is required for the nation of Israel under the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

For us gentiles, the baptism that is given to us, when we believe in Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), is Holy Spirit baptism (Ephesians 4:5). We become Christians after that (Acts 11:26).

Click to expand...

Well, that's completely at odds with the treatment of Christian Baptism in the New Testament. For one thing, sacramental baptism is not the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit," and for another, it also is administered by another human, per Christ's own wording, using water and an invocation of the Trinity. It is expected of all new Christians. All of that is clearly stated.