Baptism question???

[Maximus]

Lucas,

See the Q&A on the UMC website.

Furthermore the Apostle Paul writes:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)

Notice that Paul does not state that we are saved through faith, works, baptism, sacraments, etc. We are simply saved by grace through our faith in Jesus

I hope that helps!

DIANE

But being saved through faith does not mean we are free to disobey Christ and disregard the means He provided for our salvation.

What did Jesus say about baptism and the new birth?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

St. Paul mirrors those words of the Savior in his letter to Titus.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

Notice the juxtaposition of "water and the Spirit" and "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

It is a fact that the early Church Fathers believed baptism was the "laver of regeneration."

St. Ambrose of Milan -

But Christ, beholding His Church, for whom He Himself, as you find in the book of the prophet Zechariah, had put on filthy garments, now clothed in white raiment, seeing, that is, a soul pure and washed in the laver of regeneration, says: "Behold, thou art fair, My love, behold thou art fair, thy eyes are like a dove's," in the likeness of which the Holy Spirit descended from heaven. The eyes are beautiful like those of a dove, because in the likeness of a dove the Holy Spirit descended from heaven (St. Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 7:37).

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.
So that Syrian dipped himself seven times under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power (St. Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, Chapter 4:20-21).

 

[KEPLER]

I have been reflecting on how to repsond to those who (erroneously) claim that Baptism is a merely a "token" or "symbol" of "our" profession of our faith in Christ. The wrongness of this view is surely shouted from the Scriptures, and yet people stubbornly continue to believe it. And then the text of Mark's account of Jesus' baptism came to mind....

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

Q: Are we to believe from this passage that Jesus was NOT God's son before He was baptized?

A: Of course not! It goes without saying that anyone who answers "yes" is a heretic.

Nevertheless, it's a puzzling statement. If He was already God's Son (and Jesus' own words in the Temple at age 12 certainly suggest that Jesus himself knew He was God's Son!), then why did God say it?

The text leaves us a bit in the dark: it does not offer an explanation. All we know is that at Jesus' Baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon him, and God testified to Jesus' Sonship in front of everyone gathered.

It is the Holy Spirit who came, and God who spoke.

Baptism is not -- cannot be -- our profession of faith. We cannot get up in front of a crowd of people and say, "I declare to you that I am a child of God, and to prove it, I'm going to get wet." We cannot do this any more than we can get up and say, "I declare that as of this moment, I am a citizen of France, and to prove it, I'm going to eat this cheese while singing the Marsellaise." We can certainly change our minds abour wanting to become French. We can learn what it means to "be" French. But short of a statement of Citizenship from the French Government, we are not French. We cannot adopt ourselves into God's family.

Baptism is God's profession of faith towards us.

The Holy Spirit comes to us, and GOD tells the world: THIS. IS. MINE.
God tells the devil: HANDS. OFF.
And God tells us: YOU. ARE. CLEAN.

To say, even suggest, that Baptism is "our" action, "our" profession of faith, is to take away from God what is rightly His. (And BTW, the technical word for that is "blasphemy".)

Kepler

 

[Stinker]

God did not make the Holy Spirit 100% dependent upon enough water being present to do His work upon an individual.

When one has been shown that they are on a wrong course, the quickest way to get on the correct course is to reverse gears and get on that right course. Whether or not that organization first started on that wrong course 2000 years ago or 2 days ago.

Just look what happened when people nearly 2000 years ago took a wrong turn and started teaching that water baptism was essential to salvation. They ran into a horrendous problem when Evangelists were not able to fully immerse people in the desert regions.

So like what happens everytime you adopt false teaching....you sooner or later have to start making comprimises.....and comprimise they did:



http://www.bswett.com/1998-01Didache.html


7:1 Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot baptize in cold water, then warm water; 3 but if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 4 Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.

 

[KEPLER]

God did not make the Holy Spirit 100% dependent upon enough water being present to do His work upon an individual.

Since there isn't a single person in this thread who has EVER argued for that position, I'm not sure who this is aimed at.

???

Kepler

 

[AvgJoe]

I think it should not be questioned, the Bible says to be baptised, so do it

Excellent answer!

 

[Loukuss]

1) Thinking that a baby needs to make a "commitment to God" presupposes that Baptism is our action. It is not.

2) Please cite Scripture which defines this "age of accountability".

Cheers,

Kepler

Hate to just post articles but I find this works best for me. Let me know what you think of it and what you find wrong with it, as I know you will.
http://www.bebaptized.org/ButIwasbaptizedasaninfant.htm

God bless,

Lucas

 

[Iollain]

1) Who says it's your job to see this difference?
2) What should this difference be?
3) Are you suggesting that there has never been the case of an adult who was baptised but did not show evidence (whatever that is)of a "difference".
4) Your objection presupposes that Baptism is "mechanistic" or "magic". It is not. It both requires and gives faith to the adult baptisand, and gives and nurtures faith in the child baptisand. This does not mean that as the child grows, she is incapable of walking away from the faith given to her.

Cheers,

Kepler

They don't have faith unless they are taught faith, imo. Baptised and unbaptised. They have to hear it. If a babe is baptised and then brought up by unbelievers they are no better off than any other unbelievers kids. Faith comes by hearing.

 

[Schroeder]

How is it that this preposterous and silly misinterpretation of John 3:5 continues to be spread around???

Jesus was NOT talking about physical birth. THINK ABOUT IT.

Was Jesus REALLY saying to Nicodemus, "In order to go to heaven, a REQUIREMENT is that you must first be BORN"??? That's kinda stating the obvious isn't it???

How STUPID would Jesus be if he said that???

Don't you think that Nicodemus KNEW there is no such thing as "UNBORN" or "NONEXISTANT" people in heaven???

DUH!!!!

No my friend, Jesus is MOST ASSUREDLY speaking of Water Baptism, during which God creates in us a clean heart and gives us the Gift of His Spirit.

Kepler

for one your smartellic attitude and demeaning words usage does not do much for your idea of water baptism cleansing your mind or heart. and hindsite is 20/20 is it not. but yourself in his shoe. and you dont use the very next verse. flesh gives birth to flesh.Why on earth would he say this if water did not mean something as physical birth. seeing how it is flesh that gives birth to flesh. so he is stupid to say it TWICE. it is RATHER obviuose that it is a physical birth he was thinking about so why would it be stupid to bring it up. SO in acts 10 they already had this clean heart since they were NOT water baptized before they got the Spirit. kind of ruines your whole thinking doesnt it. or is God just as foolish or forgetfull.

 

[KEPLER]

Hate to just post articles but I find this works best for me. Let me know what you think of it and what you find wrong with it, as I know you will.
http://www.bebaptized.org/ButIwasbaptizedasaninfant.htm

God bless,

Lucas

I read about the first 10 lines, and those people are whack-jobs, whoever they are.

If someone doesn't want to believe in original sin, they're going to have to do better than idiotic rationalistic arguments:

But if humans are “born in sin” and separated from God, then Jesus would not have been sinless. Jesus was not 50% God and 50% man. He was 100% God and 100% man.

1) The doctrine of Original sin makes no such statements about Jesus.

2) The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin (although they DO believe we are born with a predilection to sin), and yet they DO baptize infants.

Based on 1 & 2 above, I have to conclude that who ever wrote that are uneducated as to what the truly Biblical basis of baptism is.

Futhermore, they have to deal with statements like the Psalms where it says, "in sin my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5

The contend that sin is an ACT, not a condition. That si 100% the oppostie of what the Bible teaches. These people sound A LOT like Mormons, my friend. (Although I suspect they are actually Campbellites, who are just as much in error as Mormons).

The website further says

Another problem with the doctrine of “original sin” is that it teaches people they don’t have to take responsibility for their own sins.

???

Again, this is sheer ignorance. The doctrine of Original Sin "teaches" no such baloney.

I need go no further. That website is full of cr@p. Whoever wrote is Biblically illiterate and completely ignorant.

End of discussion.

Kepler

 

[Schroeder]

I have been reflecting on how to repsond to those who (erroneously) claim that Baptism is a merely a "token" or "symbol" of "our" profession of our faith in Christ. The wrongness of this view is surely shouted from the Scriptures, and yet people stubbornly continue to believe it. And then the text of Mark's account of Jesus' baptism came to mind....



Q: Are we to believe from this passage that Jesus was NOT God's son before He was baptized?

A: Of course not! It goes without saying that anyone who answers "yes" is a heretic.

Nevertheless, it's a puzzling statement. If He was already God's Son (and Jesus' own words in the Temple at age 12 certainly suggest that Jesus himself knew He was God's Son!), then why did God say it?

The text leaves us a bit in the dark: it does not offer an explanation. All we know is that at Jesus' Baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon him, and God testified to Jesus' Sonship in front of everyone gathered.

It is the Holy Spirit who came, and God who spoke.

Baptism is not -- cannot be -- our profession of faith. We cannot get up in front of a crowd of people and say, "I declare to you that I am a child of God, and to prove it, I'm going to get wet." We cannot do this any more than we can get up and say, "I declare that as of this moment, I am a citizen of France, and to prove it, I'm going to eat this cheese while singing the Marsellaise." We can certainly change our minds abour wanting to become French. We can learn what it means to "be" French. But short of a statement of Citizenship from the French Government, we are not French. We cannot adopt ourselves into God's family.

Baptism is God's profession of faith towards us.

The Holy Spirit comes to us, and GOD tells the world: THIS. IS. MINE.
God tells the devil: HANDS. OFF.
And God tells us: YOU. ARE. CLEAN.

To say, even suggest, that Baptism is "our" action, "our" profession of faith, is to take away from God what is rightly His. (And BTW, the technical word for that is "blasphemy".)

Kepler

you almost got it right. again read acts 15:8. GOD SEEs THE HEART and then gave them the Spirit. there was NO NO NO need of a act of ANY kind including water baptism. it is ALL Gods work so why do you say we MUST be water baptized to get God to do anything at all. your point makes you contradict yourself completely. you say it is all GOds work yet you say we MUST do it before he gives us the Spirit or whatever because it(water baptism) cleanses us so the Spirit can reside in us. Well it is the SPirit that cleanses us. read Titus 3:5 and hebrews 9:14. " How much more, then, will the BLOOD of Christ, who through the ETERNAL SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God, CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCE from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living GOD." do you see water baptism in here at all? read heb 9:10 it says EXTERNAL regulations applying untill the new ORDER. is not water baptism a EXTERNAL regulation. it says they were not able to cleanse the conscience. what can verse 14 tells us. so this cleansing of the heart is done by who. SO as i stated in acts 15:8 it shows those saved were not water baptized before they got the spirit. and GOd doesnt even mention water baptism at all.

 

[KEPLER]

I looked around a little bit more, and yes indeed, the people who wrote that are "Church of Christ" which are Campbellites.

There is much evidence that Joseph Smith took many of his teachings from the Campbells or people associated with the Campbells.

Whether or not they are the cult "Church of Christ" or just the regular "Chruch of Christ", I'm not sure, although I suspect the former.

The cultic "Church of Christ" is also known as either the "Boston Church of Christ" or the "Los Angeles Church of Christ". Info on them can be found here:

http://www.reveal.org/
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html
http://www.watchman.org/cults/boston.htm

And this site has a HUGE list of other websites about the ICOC:

http://members.aol.com/djrtx/iccsites.htm#Web

Be very careful, my friend. Those are very dangerous people. Wolves in vicious sheep's clothing.

Kepler

 

[Maximus]

They don't have faith unless they are taught faith, imo. Baptised and unbaptised. They have to hear it. If a babe is baptised and then brought up by unbelievers they are no better off than any other unbelievers kids. Faith comes by hearing.

Infant baptism is the ancient practice of the Church.

According to the article on baptism in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Jews baptized the infant children of their converts. The practice would not have seemed odd to the Apostles and the other early Christians, especially considering the parallel between circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New (see Col. 2:11-12).

We know from Scripture that the Apostles baptized entire families and households. It is difficult to believe that those families and households included no infants or toddlers, especially in an age that had no birth control pill (see Acts 10:44-48; 11:14; 16:14-15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16).

St. Paul tells us the children of believers are "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), and Jesus said not to forbid the bringing of little children to Him (Matthew 19:13-14).

While it is true that infant baptism cannot be absolutely, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proved from Scripture, the same is true of "believers only" baptism.

There is, however, a strong argument for infant baptism from Scripture. Taken together with the historical evidence - the practice of the 1st century Jews, the writings of the Church Fathers, the ancient liturgy of the Church - it is overwhelming.

 

[KEPLER]

you almost got it right. again read acts 15:8. GOD SEEs THE HEART and then gave them the Spirit. there was NO NO NO need of a act of ANY kind including water baptism. it is ALL Gods work so why do you say we MUST be water baptized to get God to do anything at all. your point makes you contradict yourself completely. you say it is all GOds work yet you say we MUST do it before he gives us the Spirit or whatever because it(water baptism) cleanses us so the Spirit can reside in us. Well it is the SPirit that cleanses us. read Titus 3:5 and hebrews 9:14. " How much more, then, will the BLOOD of Christ, who through the ETERNAL SPIRIT offered himself unblemished to God, CLEANSE OUR CONSCIENCE from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living GOD." do you see water baptism in here at all? read heb 9:10 it says EXTERNAL regulations applying untill the new ORDER. is not water baptism a EXTERNAL regulation. it says they were not able to cleanse the conscience. what can verse 14 tells us. so this cleansing of the heart is done by who. SO as i stated in acts 15:8 it shows those saved were not water baptized before they got the spirit. and GOd doesnt even mention water baptism at all.

***rolls eyes***

 

[KEPLER]

Infant baptism is the ancient practice of the Church.

According to the article on baptism in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Jews baptized the infant children of their converts. The practice would not have seemed odd to the Apostles and the other early Christians, especially considering the parallel between circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New (see Col. 2:11-12).

We know from Scripture that the Apostles baptized entire families and households. It is difficult to believe that those families and households included no infants or toddlers, especially in an age that had no birth control pill (see Acts 10:44-48,; 11:14; 16:14-15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16).

St. Paul tells us the children of believers are "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), and Jesus said not to forbid the bringing of little children to Him (Matthew 19:13-14).

While it is true that infant baptism cannot be absolutely, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proved from Scripture, the same is true of "believers only" baptism.

There is, however, a strong argument for infant baptism from Scripture. Taken together with the historical evidence - the practice of the 1st century Jews, the writings of the Church Fathers, the ancient liturgy of the Church - it is overwhelming.

Let's not forget that Paul makes a direct connection between circumcision and baptism...and we all know that boys were circumcised at 8 days.

 

[Maximus]

Let's not forget that Paul makes a direct connection between circumcision and baptism...and we all know that boys were circumcised at 8 days.

I didn't forget. I mentioned it in my post.

Infant baptism is the ancient practice of the Church.

According to the article on baptism in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the Jews baptized the infant children of their converts. The practice would not have seemed odd to the Apostles and the other early Christians, especially considering the parallel between circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New (see Col. 2:11-12).

We know from Scripture that the Apostles baptized entire families and households. It is difficult to believe that those families and households included no infants or toddlers, especially in an age that had no birth control pill (see Acts 10:44-48,; 11:14; 16:14-15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16).

St. Paul tells us the children of believers are "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), and Jesus said not to forbid the bringing of little children to Him (Matthew 19:13-14).

While it is true that infant baptism cannot be absolutely, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proved from Scripture, the same is true of "believers only" baptism.

There is, however, a strong argument for infant baptism from Scripture. Taken together with the historical evidence - the practice of the 1st century Jews, the writings of the Church Fathers, the ancient liturgy of the Church - it is overwhelming.

Anyway, it's good that you mentioned it again.

The sign of the Old Covenant was administered to infant boys.

The sign of the New Covenant (which is more than a mere sign) is also administered to infants.

 

[Schroeder]

But being saved through faith does not mean we are free to disobey Christ and disregard the means He provided for our salvation.

What did Jesus say about baptism and the new birth?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

St. Paul mirrors those words of the Savior in his letter to Titus.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

Notice the juxtaposition of "water and the Spirit" and "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

your semed to be forgeting that it says NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. or do you say getting water baptized is NOT a righteous act. i think you would NOT say that. so you contradict yourself or the scriptures. AND there is NO COMMA after washinf od regeneration. it is two thing the SPirit does. which is why it says in the NEXT verse it was THROUGH CHRIST. And it says justified by his GRACE. if water baptism was needed it would not be justification through GRACE it would be by water baptism or works of righteousness. you all need to READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE.

It is a fact that the early Church Fathers believed baptism was the "laver of regeneration."

St. Ambrose of Milan -

But Christ, beholding His Church, for whom He Himself, as you find in the book of the prophet Zechariah, had put on filthy garments, now clothed in white raiment, seeing, that is, a soul pure and washed in the laver of regeneration, says: "Behold, thou art fair, My love, behold thou art fair, thy eyes are like a dove's," in the likeness of which the Holy Spirit descended from heaven. The eyes are beautiful like those of a dove, because in the likeness of a dove the Holy Spirit descended from heaven (St. Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 7:37).

if you rely on man for interpretation you will never get it right.

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

this idea of regeneration through water baptism is not scriptual. read ROM 5. it speaks of justification and reconciliation. i dont think the word is even in scripture. and if you read john 3:5 with the rest of the passage as in 6-8 you will see it is not water baptism but the Spirit. why would he speak of both then only one in verse 8. "So it is with everyone BORN OF THE SPIRIT." DID HE FORGET ABOUT THE WATER. he seems to have forgot it in the next 4 chapters when he always said if you believe in me you are saved.

So that Syrian dipped himself seven times under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power (St. Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, Chapter 4:20-21).

it funny no one in scripture was baptized that way. in the name of the father son and holy spirit. So yes it was VERY VOID of power. seeing how it was used ONLY to show your asociation with the gospel or belief in what Christ taught. it showed you do not follow the old beliefs you once followed. 1 cor 1 shows that this is what it was used for. Paul was upset they were argueing that they associated with the baptiser and not who the baptiser was speaking about CHRIST.

 

[Schroeder]

***rolls eyes***

ussual response if it cant be shown wrong. of course i should have exspectes as much this is your ussual response to my posts. You are so close to the actuall meaning of it all. if you were not so RUDE you might see it.

 

[CaDan]

*checking in*

Actually, much of Augustine's analysis regarding Original Sin is based upon the practice of infant baptism. He took it as a given that Christians baptized infants and set out to explain why they did so.

Deriving doxos from praxis. We don't see that form of analysis very much anymore in the West, but it was very prevalent in the first 1000 years or so of the Church in the West and continues in the Church in the East.

 

[Maximus]

your semed to be forgeting that it says NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. or do you say getting water baptized is NOT a righteous act. i think you would NOT say that. so you contradict yourself or the scriptures. AND there is NO COMMA after washinf od regeneration. it is two thing the SPirit does. which is why it says in the NEXT verse it was THROUGH CHRIST. And it says justified by his GRACE. if water baptism was needed it would not be justification through GRACE it would be by water baptism or works of righteousness. you all need to READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE.

If baptism is a "work," then so is faith.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

Jesus said a man must be born of water and the Spirit.

St. Paul said "by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Notice that, in deference to your sensibilities, I left the comma out of that last clause. You still have the problem caused by that little conjunction and.

What St. Paul wrote parallels what our Lord said. Water and Spirit. Washing and Spirit.

Hard to miss that.

if you rely on man for interpretation you will never get it right.

The early Church Fathers show us the opinion of the early Church.

They help us to understand the Bible.

Such help is not to be rejected lightly.

this idea of regeneration through water baptism is not scriptual. read ROM 5. it speaks of justification and reconciliation. i dont think the word is even in scripture. and if you read john 3:5 with the rest of the passage as in 6-8 you will see it is not water baptism but the Spirit. why would he speak of both then only one in verse 8. "So it is with everyone BORN OF THE SPIRIT." DID HE FORGET ABOUT THE WATER. he seems to have forgot it in the next 4 chapters when he always said if you believe in me you are saved.
it funny no one in scripture was baptized that way. in the name of the father son and holy spirit. So yes they are VERY VOID of power. seeing how it was used ONLY to show your asociation with the gospel or belief in what Christ taught. it showed you do not follow the old beliefs you once followed. 1 cor 1 shows that this is what it was used for. Paul was upset they were argueing that they associated with the baptiser and not who the baptiser was speaking about CHRIST.

Baptismal regeneration is very much taught in Scripture.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

[Remember Titus 3:5, "by the washing of regeneration"?]

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[Schroeder]

He didn't need to be.

This is what Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, don't seem to understand....the NT era didn't begin until Pentecost. Before then, the OT was still in place because the Church wasn't around yet.

Baptism is now necessary for salvation. That's what Jesus tells us, that is what Scripture tells us, that is what Tradition tells us, and that is the logical conclusion when Reason is properly utilized.

BigChristian, that website isn't even a Christian website. They reject the Nicene Creed.

no he did not need it. and it started at his DEATH. his death SAVED those in the past present and future. the man on the cross was saved by belief just as all those in the old covenant. nothing they did in al there ordances and scrafices did anything to save them. read Heb. it was ALL held over untill Christ sacrifice. Is all the old testement saints going to have to be water baptized. nope. we dont need it either. because Christ did the ONE ACT OF OBEDIANCE FOR US. Rom 5. Scripture does NOT tell us that at all. we are saved by GRACE. read Titus 5. NOT BY RIGHTEOUS ACTS. if water baptism is needed is it not a righteous act on our behalf to do it. other wise you are saying it is not a righteous act. BUT to do his will is a righteous act is it not. the FACT is we can do no righteous act until we have the SPIRIT in us. because we can not do his will untill we have the SPirit. 1 cor 2. Acts 15:8 proves this. it is God seeing our hearts. not our works. and once we have the SPirit SCRIPTURE clearly says we are hiers to his kingdom and if that is true then what else is need to be done. Eph 1:13-14.