Baptism necessary for Salvation

[dóxatotheó]

[Romans 10:8-13]
But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."​

Will "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD" be saved, or only those that "call on the name of the Lord and are baptized by the correct man in the correct church?"

Will I really be saved if I "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead", or was Paul misleading people with a false hope?

Why anyone who, in the words of Charles Spurgeon ...

The Lord is my portion, saith my soul. —Lamentations 3:24
It is not "The Lord is partly my portion," nor "The Lord is in my portion"; but He Himself makes up the sum total of my soul's inheritance. Within the circumference of that circle lies all that we possess or desire. The Lord is my portion. Not His grace merely, nor His love, nor His covenant, but Jehovah Himself. He has chosen us for His portion, and we have chosen Him for ours. It is true that the Lord must first choose our inheritance for us, or else we shall never choose it for ourselves; but if we are really called according to the purpose of electing love, we can sing-

"Lov'd of my God for Him again
With love intense I burn;
Chosen of Him ere time began,
I choose Him in return."​

... would choose wilful disobedience to the Lord's command to repent and be baptized is unfathomable to me, but to claim baptism is a prerequisite for God's grace is to make Paul a liar. [Not to mention Jesus in John 3:16-21].

The verses you shows that we still have a possibility to be saved if we are not baptized. As said in Ephesians 2:8 by grace we are saved. The passage in Romans 6 (backed up by Colossians 2) is not the only evidence from the New Testament that baptism is effective and therefore necessary for salvation. The apostles Peter and John confirm St. Paul’s teaching. In Acts 2, when St. Peter is preaching at Pentecost, his hearers ask what they must do to be saved, and he replies, “Repent and be baptized.” In 1 Peter 3, Noah’s ark is referred to as a type of baptism, and Peter writes, “In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

 

[New Testament Christian]

Claiming strawman does not prove it.

You want explicit quotes Im saying it doesnt is why we look through history aswell, to see whats Orthodox or not.

Out of your own mouth.
You proved me correct. You do not believe in the authority of the scriptures.
Your authority is your churches traditions.
This does prove your faith is not in the Bible.

I would like you to prove your claim that the Bible teaches churches traditions have the authority to dictate doctrine,

bible also told us to keep historical traditions which is shown through church history.

There is traditions of the church that we are to imitate.
That church can be read about in the Bible.
Not outside the scriptures.

Babies might be guiltless as I already said but they have a human nature which derives from they original sin.

Friend this is a contradiction.
You cannot be guiltless if you are guilty of sin.

Our church believes that, but we dont believe that you should only baptize if you have faith.

If your church believes this. Then by who's authority are the "WE" determining you can disagree with your church doctrine?

Sounds very much as if "WE" are their own authority, Philippians 3:19
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

 

[atpollard]

The verses you shows that we still have a possibility to be saved if we are not baptized.

If the possibility of salvation without baptism exists, as you admit Paul claims, then by definition, baptism is not “necessary” for salvation (as the title of the topic claims).

“WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Throughout Acts, the earliest book of the “history” of the Church, baptism appears as an act of obedience, not a prerequisite for grace.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If the possibility of salvation without baptism exists, as you admit Paul claims, then by definition, baptism is not “necessary” for salvation (as the title of the topic claims).

How in anyway do you come to that conclusion, all churches believe if a person doesnt have a possibility to be baptized they still have a possibility to be saved.

Throughout Acts, the earliest book of the “history” of the Church, baptism appears as an act of obedience, not a prerequisite for grace.

In Acts and our earliest christian documents it shows that baptism is the remission of sins and what is commanded for us to enter the kingdom.

 

[atpollard]

How in anyway do you come to that conclusion, all churches believe if a person doesnt have a possibility to be baptized they still have a possibility to be saved.

Logic isn’t really your strong suit is it?

Let me try explaining it like this:

STATEMENT: The [Blood of Christ] is necessary for salvation.

QUESTION: If someone does not have the [Blood of Christ], can they be saved?

ANSWER: NO! Without the [Blood of Christ], salvation is impossible. There is simply no alternative path to salvation that bypasses the [Blood of Christ].

CONCLUSION: The statement “The [Blood of Christ] is necessary for salvation” is true.

Now let us examine YOUR statement in the TITLE of this Topic:


STATEMENT: [Baptism] is necessary for salvation.

QUESTION: If someone does not have [Baptism], can they be saved?

ANSWER: Yes! You said yourself “all churches believe if a person doesnt have a possibility to be baptized they still have a possibility to be saved”. Thus it is universally recognized as a POSSIBILITY for an unbaptized person to be saved. [Baptism] is not NECESSARY for salvation in the same way that the [Blood of Christ] is NECESSARY a for salvation.

CONCLUSION: The statement “[Baptism] is necessary for salvation” is false, since Baptism is not essential for salvation in ALL cases (the definition of “necessary”).

A stillborn infant was not baptized, if baptism were NECESSARY for salvation, then the infant would be incapable of being saved by God. I do not presume to tell God whom He cannot save because they were not “correctly baptized”. That is my point and it makes the statement in the title a false claim.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Logic isn’t really your strong suit is it?

Let me try explaining it like this:

STATEMENT: The [Blood of Christ] is necessary for salvation.

QUESTION: If someone does not have the [Blood of Christ], can they be saved?

ANSWER: NO! Without the [Blood of Christ], salvation is impossible. There is simply no alternative path to salvation that bypasses the [Blood of Christ].

CONCLUSION: The statement “The [Blood of Christ] is necessary for salvation” is true.

Now let us examine YOUR statement in the TITLE of this Topic:


STATEMENT: [Baptism] is necessary for salvation.

QUESTION: If someone does not have [Baptism], can they be saved?

ANSWER: Yes! You said yourself “all churches believe if a person doesnt have a possibility to be baptized they still have a possibility to be saved”. Thus it is universally recognized as a POSSIBILITY for an unbaptized person to be saved. [Baptism] is not NECESSARY for salvation in the same way that the [Blood of Christ] is NECESSARY a for salvation.

CONCLUSION: The statement “[Baptism] is necessary for salvation” is false, since Baptism is not essential for salvation in ALL cases (the definition of “necessary”).

A stillborn infant was not baptized, if baptism were NECESSARY for salvation, then the infant would be incapable of being saved by God. I do not presume to tell God whom He cannot save because they were not “correctly baptized”. That is my point and it makes the statement in the title a false claim.

When we say baptism is necessary we saying that without baptism circumcision is impossible as the bible says baptism is circumcision. I am saying if a person doesnt have the possibility to be baptized but call on Jesus they can be saved. Thats Gods grace that they see salvation, not that its not necessary.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Greek word for “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια, palinggenesia) appears only two times in the New Testament: Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. In Matthew 19:28 “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια) refers to the renewal of creation at Christ’s second coming. This parallels Peter’s proclamation of the eschatological renewal of creation in Acts 3:21 and the promise of a new heaven and a new earth in Revelation 21:1.

The reference to “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσια) in Titus 3:4-7 is of greater relevance to the question about baptismal regeneration. Paul writes:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας) and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life
View attachment 308344
It must be rightfully understood that we are saved by grace - a free gift from God due to Christ's death on the cross (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8). We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior (Matt 7:21-23). Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins are the fruits of actual grace - God working through us but respecting our free will (Phil 2:12-13; John 15:5; 2 Cor 6:1). Through baptism we are born again which makes us right with God (1 Cor 6:11). Whether we are baptized as adults or our parents baptized us as infants, salvation is still a free gift - an inheritance (1Cor 6:9-10).

Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).
I Hold Baptism is necessary for salvation as the scriptures teach so (Mark 16:16 and Titus 3:5).


“Born Again” Experience or Baptismal Regeneration? – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

The elephant in the room is that baptism in the book of Acts was quite different to the ceremonial and ritualised baptisms that are performed in today's churches. It is not performing the ritual, whether as a Catholic, Baptist, or Calvinist, that puts the believer on the path to salvation. The Scripture says that it is from the heart that a person believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. If a person believes in their heart that because of repentance and belief in the Gospel that they have received righteousness from the Lord, then with the same attitude of heart, they will willingly be baptised, so as to identify themselves with the death and resurrection of Christ as a testimony to the world around them.

But if a person is baptised just to satisfy a church's prerequisite for membership, then that ritualised and ceremonial baptism will have no moral value to God. A hypocrite can go through the motion of baptism and still remain a hypocrite.

Oh, by the way, just in case some get hung up on my "Pentecostal" ID, I am sure that baptisms can be just as ritualised and ceremonial in those churches as anywhere else. Maybe I should have added "Pentecostal" to the above list along with Catholic, Baptist and Calvinist.

 

[dóxatotheó]

The elephant in the room is that baptism in the book of Acts was quite different to the ceremonial and ritualised baptisms that are performed in today's churches. It is not performing the ritual, whether as a Catholic, Baptist, or Calvinist, that puts the believe on the path to salvation. The Scripture says that it is from the heart that a person believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. If a person believes in their heart that because of repentance and belief in the Gospel that they have received righteousness from the Lord, then with the same attitude of heart, they will willingly be baptised, so as to identify themselves with the death and resurrection of Christ as a testimony to the world around them.

But if a person is baptised just to satisfy a church's prerequisite for membership, then that ritualised and ceremonial baptism will have no moral value to God. A hypocrite can go through the motion of baptism and still remain a hypocrite.

You didnt read the OP

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You didnt read the OP

I did. I have no real argument with it. All I wanted to do was to make an interesting point concerning the real difference in attitude of the book of Acts believers and many believers in our modern churches. I believe that any person who comes to Christ with their heart, and is baptised because they see it in God's Word that it is necessary for confirmation of their faith in Christ and their public confession that they are identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ, then it doesn't matter which church they join up with, and whether they are "dipped", as is the meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω (I dip), or whether they are sprinkled or have water poured on their heads. In our modern churches all three methods are described by the same Greek word in that βαπτίζω now means "I baptize" as the religious ceremony.

In saying this, I do believe that anyone who professes Christianity and who refuse to be baptised, show that there is something fundamentally wrong with the profession of faith, because we do see in God's Word, profession of faith and being baptised go together to set a believer firmly on the path.

 

[New Testament Christian]

Sprinkling water on someone is a reinterpretation of baptism.
We have no right to change baptism into something it is not, just as we have no right to change the definition of marriage into a covenant between two men or two women or animal and a man or a inanimate object and a man, etc.

The meaning of words have purpose.
The Greek word used in baptism literally means immersion. Immersion is a complete covering a burial.

Every baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, was a burial in water a immersion.

The scriptures prove this to be true,
Acts 8:36;38-39
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Phillip and the eunuch WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER, AND HE BAPTIZED HIM.

NOW WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Sprinkling water on someone is a reinterpretation of baptism.
We have no right to change baptism into something it is not, just as we have no right to change the definition of marriage into a covenant between two men or two women or animal and a man or a inanimate object and a man, etc.

The meaning of words have purpose.
The Greek word used in baptism literally means immersion. Immersion is a complete covering a burial.

Every baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, was a burial in water a immersion.

The scriptures prove this to be true,
Acts 8:36;38-39
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Phillip and the eunuch WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER, AND HE BAPTIZED HIM.

NOW WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

we do immersion this op is about necessity of baptism.