A conversation about unity.

[ozso]

Do you believe baptism is required for salvation?

Our church teaches against this and has told us that only 'cults' believe in this because it is contrary to scripture.

I'm interested because it is something that my mom believed before we read the scripture together and I passed on the knowledge from my church. Up until that point, I never even knew she believed that baptism was a requirement for salvation.

The idea is problematic for the reason I listed above. I do however think it's necessary for a Christian to be baptized. Because Christ ordered it.

 

[CerebralCherub]

The idea is problematic for the reason I listed above. I do however think it's necessary for a Christian to be baptized. Because Christ ordered it.

Thank you for answering in good faith.

I was baptized, for the first time, earlier this year. I had to sit down with the elder of the church, beforehand, so that he could instruct me on the reasons for baptism and make sure I understood it as it pertained to scripture etc so I appreciate your response and honesty.

Have a great weekend

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not required for salvation.

Jesus saves; no one and nothing else, Acts 4:12, John 1:12, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:5, 8.

Jesus answered him, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
John 3:3-5 NRSV-CE

Sometimes I wonder why people miss the obvious and the clear statements in scripture and seek out obscure ones as replacements for what Jesus said.

A person could become a Christian but die before they can be baptised, or receive communion. They would still be saved.

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus answered him, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
John 3:3-5 NRSV-CE

I'm not denying baptism is a good thing, nor saying that no one needs to be baptised.

But if it were required for salvation, people who received Christ on their death beds, or on death row, or who became Christians but unexpectedly died before they could even find a church, never mind request baptism, would not be saved. People in other countries who might become Christians but only be baptised sometime later, would only be saved at the point of their baptism.
Either God would say, "you're not baptised; this is required for salvation, you're out". Or "you're not baptised, this is required for salvation but I'll make an exception because you didn't know you were going to die."

More than that, it says that Jesus alone is not enough.
Peter himself (i.e. your first Pope) said that there is no other name by which you can be saved - not Jesus + the name of baptism, Jesus + the name of your church or anything else.
Only Jesus.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm not denying baptism is a good thing, nor saying that no one needs to be baptised.

But

The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16 NRSV-CE

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That’s wise but I have to stay as long as we are viewed as second class citizens and not Christian enough.

I know the feeling.

 

[Strong in Him]

The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16 NRSV-CE

You haven't answered the point I made.

Are you saying, then, that if someone is dying of cancer, hears the Gospel preached and responds, accepts Jesus and declares him as Lord and Saviour but dies before they can be baptised, they are condemned? That believing in Jesus, accepting God's Son and receiving him, John 1:12, isn't enough? That God will still say, "you believed in my Son but you died before a priest could baptise you; you're going to hell"?

Jesus alone saves - NOT Jesus + baptism, Jesus + church doctrine, Jesus + anything.
Why would Jesus have suffered such agony if all that was needed for salvation was a bit of water?

 

[ozso]

Jesus answered him, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
John 3:3-5 NRSV-CE

Sometimes I wonder why people miss the obvious and the clear statements in scripture and seek out obscure ones as replacements for what Jesus said.

Jesus doesn't say baptized though. It has to be assumed born of water means baptism. Also that interpretation is not compatible with John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5 etc.

The one who believes and is baptised will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16 NRSV-CE

'Is not baptized will be condemned' is not there.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You haven't answered the point I made.

You put a hypothetical and that isn't a point.

Are you saying, then, that if someone is dying of cancer, hears the Gospel preached and responds, accepts Jesus and declares him as Lord and Saviour but dies before they can be baptised, they are condemned?

I am not saying that but you are. You have some crazy ideas about what Catholic teach. You could fix that by reading more.

That believing in Jesus, accepting God's Son and receiving him, John 1:12, isn't enough? That God will still say, "you believed in my Son but you died before a priest could baptise you; you're going to hell"?

Jesus alone saves - NOT Jesus + baptism, Jesus + church doctrine, Jesus + anything.
Why would Jesus have suffered such agony if all that was needed for salvation was a bit of water?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus doesn't say baptized though. It has to be assumed born of water means baptism. Also that interpretation is not compatible with John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5 etc.

'Is not baptized will be condemned' is not there.

Why do you try to find an escape clause for every passage you read?

 

[ozso]

Why do you try to find an escape clause for every passage you read?

As flattering as that is, I can't take credit for arguments have been presented for centuries.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To me, false ecumenism is trying to assimilate everyone into a church where everyone is a cookie-cutter clone of each other.

This experiment was tried here in Canada; it was called the "United Church of Canada" and absorbed most of the Presbyterian Churches out side of Ontario, some Anglicans, United Methodists, free Methodists, EUB some Baptists, Christian Reformed, and a bunch of other free Congregationalists. This experiment is failing at an alarming rate; 40 years ago my little city had 4 UCC Churches, two were huge. Now there is only one left, and they rent it out as a performance hall while the rest of the membership gradually disappears. Same thing is happening with all of the other non denominational/Pentecostal/Baptist churches. Their membership moves from one to the other chasing personalities who tell them what they want to hear.

At least, with Conservative, Confessional Liturgical Churches, they strive to understand their differences, and recognize where their beliefs and practices align, and accept where they do not. This is true ecumenism. Not only is each Communion different from another, but within each, each congregation is different in different ways.

In the Scriptures, it Paul's Epistles, we see different Churches facing different challenges; likewise in The Revelation; each of those 7 churches is unique and facing unique issues, yet they are still in fellowship and unity with each other; yet only one of them still exists.

This thread has not been one of Christian love, but of polemic anger and hatred for fellow Christians.

I regret participating.

Sola Deo Gloria!

Mark

 

[ozso]

There are times when scripture says something very flat out, straightforward, and very crystal clear. And one of those occasions are the numerous times we read that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. That salvation is a gift from God received though faith in Christ, and not of anything else. Where the words salvation and saved are used. Or everlasting life. As opposed to verses with other words and phrases that might or might not mean salvation used to contradict Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16; John 3:36; Titus 3:5 etc etc.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As flattering as that is

It isn't flattering.

, I can't take credit for arguments have been presented for centuries.

Do more research.

The interpretation of John 3:5—“unless one is born of water and the Spirit…”—as referring to natural birth (via amniotic fluid or physical delivery) and spiritual rebirth (conversion or regeneration) emerged among certain Protestant theologians in the post-Reformation period, particularly from the 17th century onward. This reading gained traction as a way to counter Catholic sacramental theology, especially the doctrine that this verse refers to baptismal regeneration.

Historical Development​

• Early Reformers (16th century): Luther and Calvin both affirmed baptismal significance in John 3:5, though they nuanced it differently from Catholic teaching. Calvin, for instance, saw baptism as a sign of regeneration rather than its cause.
• Post-Reformation Protestantism (17th–18th centuries):
  • Some Reformed and Evangelical theologians began interpreting “born of water” as natural birth, distinguishing it from “Spirit” as spiritual rebirth. This allowed them to reject baptismal regeneration while still affirming the necessity of spiritual renewal.
  • This view became more common in revivalist and dispensationalist circles in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in English-speaking Protestantism.
• Modern Evangelicalism (20th century onward):
  • The natural/spiritual birth dichotomy is now a familiar interpretation in many Evangelical commentaries. It’s often used to emphasise personal conversion and the inward work of the Holy Spirit, rather than sacramental grace.

Theological Rationale​

This interpretation hinges on:

• “Water” symbolising the physical birth process (e.g., amniotic fluid).
• “Spirit” referring to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
• A desire to avoid sacramental readings that imply baptismal efficacy, which many Protestants reject.

However, this reading is not universal among Protestants. Many still interpret “water” as symbolic of baptism, repentance, or spiritual cleansing, depending on their theological tradition.

You’ll find a detailed breakdown of this dual-birth interpretation in Explaining the Bible’s commentary on John 3:5, which outlines how “born of water” may refer to natural birth and “Spirit” to spiritual rebirth.

 

[A New Dawn]

Do you believe baptism is required for salvation?

Our church teaches against this and has told us that only 'cults' believe in this because it is contrary to scripture.

I'm interested because it is something that my mom believed before we read the scripture together and I passed on the knowledge from my church. Up until that point, I never even knew she believed that baptism was a requirement for salvation.

I used to belong to a church that taught this. It was a cult.

 

[ozso]

This thread has not been one of Christian love, but of polemic anger and hatred for fellow Christians.

Balderdash. It's just been hashing over age-old disputes in doctrine. Not hatred for one another. No one has told another "I hate you" or words to that effect. I love you, I love Xeno, I love Valletta. I love the Catholic Church. And I love the Orthodox Church. Disagreeing with certain doctrines of a church doesn't mean hating it. Disagreeing with someone's interpretations, doesn't mean hating them. And likewise I don't feel hated by anyone in this thread. Or even bent out of shape. It's simply a rehashing of centuries old arguments. Spouses argue, siblings argue, friends argue. Argument does not equal hatred.

 

[A New Dawn]

To me, false ecumenism is trying to assimilate everyone into a church where everyone is a cookie-cutter clone of each other.

This experiment was tried here in Canada; it was called the "United Church of Canada" and absorbed most of the Presbyterian Churches out side of Ontario, some Anglicans, United Methodists, free Methodists, EUB some Baptists, Christian Reformed, and a bunch of other free Congregationalists. This experiment is failing at an alarming rate; 40 years ago my little city had 4 UCC Churches, two were huge. Now there is only one left, and they rent it out as a performance hall while the rest of the membership gradually disappears. Same thing is happening with all of the other non denominational/Pentecostal/Baptist churches. Their membership moves from one to the other chasing personalities who tell them what they want to hear.

At least, with Conservative, Confessional Liturgical Churches, they strive to understand their differences, and recognize where their beliefs and practices align, and accept where they do not. This is true ecumenism. Not only is each Communion different from another, but within each, each congregation is different in different ways.

In the Scriptures, it Paul's Epistles, we see different Churches facing different challenges; likewise in The Revelation; each of those 7 churches is unique and facing unique issues, yet they are still in fellowship and unity with each other; yet only one of them still exists.

This thread has not been one of Christian love, but of polemic anger and hatred for fellow Christians.

I regret participating.

Sola Deo Gloria!

Mark

I agree from an ecumenism angle, but I don’t believe that is what unity is all about. I seem to recall when we were on staff together there was a tight bond between most of us who actually believed in the mission of this website. That is what unity is all about. The bond one has with fellow believers. Not forcing people to try to agree to doctrines and beliefs they feel to be in error. I left CF about 10 years ago, and when I came back I reforged old friendships with many I worked on staff with. I thought at the time we had developed a friendship as staff members, but it seems I was wrong. And I am truly sad that you hold doctrines over unity.

 

[ozso]

It isn't flattering.

My remark was tongue-in-cheek, beloved brother.

Do more research.

The interpretation of John 3:5—“unless one is born of water and the Spirit…”—as referring to natural birth (via amniotic fluid or physical delivery) and spiritual rebirth (conversion or regeneration) emerged among certain Protestant theologians in the post-Reformation period, particularly from the 17th century onward. This reading gained traction as a way to counter Catholic sacramental theology, especially the doctrine that this verse refers to baptismal regeneration.

Historical Development​

• Early Reformers (16th century): Luther and Calvin both affirmed baptismal significance in John 3:5, though they nuanced it differently from Catholic teaching. Calvin, for instance, saw baptism as a sign of regeneration rather than its cause.
• Post-Reformation Protestantism (17th–18th centuries):
  • Some Reformed and Evangelical theologians began interpreting “born of water” as natural birth, distinguishing it from “Spirit” as spiritual rebirth. This allowed them to reject baptismal regeneration while still affirming the necessity of spiritual renewal.
  • This view became more common in revivalist and dispensationalist circles in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in English-speaking Protestantism.
• Modern Evangelicalism (20th century onward):
  • The natural/spiritual birth dichotomy is now a familiar interpretation in many Evangelical commentaries. It’s often used to emphasise personal conversion and the inward work of the Holy Spirit, rather than sacramental grace.

Theological Rationale​

This interpretation hinges on:

• “Water” symbolising the physical birth process (e.g., amniotic fluid).
• “Spirit” referring to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
• A desire to avoid sacramental readings that imply baptismal efficacy, which many Protestants reject.

However, this reading is not universal among Protestants. Many still interpret “water” as symbolic of baptism, repentance, or spiritual cleansing, depending on their theological tradition.

You’ll find a detailed breakdown of this dual-birth interpretation in Explaining the Bible’s commentary on John 3:5, which outlines how “born of water” may refer to natural birth and “Spirit” to spiritual rebirth.

What do you mean do more research. That's been around for centuries like I said. Neither you or I can take credit for any of it. Neither of us is coming up with anything new because there's nothing along these lines that hasn't already been said and written down a long time ago.

Also for what its worth I've read that type of material before. Me Christian for over 50 years, me seen a whole lotta stuff.

 

[Hentenza]

It isn't flattering.

Do more research.

The interpretation of John 3:5—“unless one is born of water and the Spirit…”—as referring to natural birth (via amniotic fluid or physical delivery) and spiritual rebirth (conversion or regeneration) emerged among certain Protestant theologians in the post-Reformation period, particularly from the 17th century onward. This reading gained traction as a way to counter Catholic sacramental theology, especially the doctrine that this verse refers to baptismal regeneration.

Historical Development​

• Early Reformers (16th century): Luther and Calvin both affirmed baptismal significance in John 3:5, though they nuanced it differently from Catholic teaching. Calvin, for instance, saw baptism as a sign of regeneration rather than its cause.
• Post-Reformation Protestantism (17th–18th centuries):
  • Some Reformed and Evangelical theologians began interpreting “born of water” as natural birth, distinguishing it from “Spirit” as spiritual rebirth. This allowed them to reject baptismal regeneration while still affirming the necessity of spiritual renewal.
  • This view became more common in revivalist and dispensationalist circles in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in English-speaking Protestantism.
• Modern Evangelicalism (20th century onward):
  • The natural/spiritual birth dichotomy is now a familiar interpretation in many Evangelical commentaries. It’s often used to emphasise personal conversion and the inward work of the Holy Spirit, rather than sacramental grace.

Theological Rationale​

This interpretation hinges on:

• “Water” symbolising the physical birth process (e.g., amniotic fluid).
• “Spirit” referring to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.
• A desire to avoid sacramental readings that imply baptismal efficacy, which many Protestants reject.

However, this reading is not universal among Protestants. Many still interpret “water” as symbolic of baptism, repentance, or spiritual cleansing, depending on their theological tradition.

You’ll find a detailed breakdown of this dual-birth interpretation in Explaining the Bible’s commentary on John 3:5, which outlines how “born of water” may refer to natural birth and “Spirit” to spiritual rebirth.

Here is the mountain you have to climb. I’m going to qualify my post explaining that I take water in John 3:5 to mean Baptism since this does not conflict with other scripture. However, I believe that baptism is not regenerative rather shows the regeneration that has already happened inside.

With that in mind now we can look at the role of John 3 and make sense of it. If baptism is what regenerates then why does the rest of the chapter including the famous 16th verse does not include it? If baptism was of such critical importance then faith in the Son is not sufficient in the salvation formula. Not only would John 3 not make any sense but also verses like Eph. 2:8-10 and others would not make any sense.

Baptism in itself does not impart faith. If it did then John and Paul would be wrong. The reason why baptism saves us is because of the change that has already happened inside. Hardly would an unbeliever decide to be baptized for salvation so the order is faith then baptism not baptism then faith.

 

[ozso]

Arguing over baptism is kind of moot, because probably 99.9% of Christains have been baptized. Even those who don't believe it's necessary for salvation, still believe it's necessary and vital to being a Christian.