Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved ?

[ARBITER01]

Im not saying anyone is wrong or right, I'm giving my perspective and responding to things that are important with my perspective, not a response.

In my view, yes. Philology time! John 3:5 states: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The conjunction 'καὶ (kai)' being used here is Strong's Greek: 2532, defined as "A primary particle having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force" also corresponding to the Hebrew גַּם (gam, H1571) meaning "also" or "even," similar in function to "καί" in connecting thoughts or adding emphasis, and 'וְ (vav, H935)', a conjunction often translated as "and," used extensively in Hebrew to connect clauses and sentences.

This means that John 3:5 is authoritative on the matter: no one baptized without water AND the Spirit can enter the Kingdom of God.

If you claim that the section of john is authoritative towards becoming born again, then I would refer you to 1 Cor 12:13

1Co 12:13 for, indeed, by one Spirit were we all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

 

[Guojing]

Spirit. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

That means nothing else correct? If you are using this verse, its believe he is the Son of God/promised Messiah, and be water baptized.

 

[Guojing]

The baptism of Christ was no for the remission of Sin, as he is the Son of God/promised Messiah, He was baptized by St. John the Baptist to show that every single man – and Jesus was both true God and true man – must be baptized for salvation. It should be pointed out that the baptism given by John the Baptist was not the same as the baptism which Jesus instituted: the true Sacrament of Baptism. It did not have the same force or power. The baptism instituted by Jesus takes away original and actual sins, as well as all punishment due to sin; the baptism of John was a baptism which stirred people to repentance and was a prefigurement of the baptism which Jesus instituted. That’s why those who had only received the baptism of John were baptized again (Acts 19:4-5). But Jesus’ reception of baptism at the hands of John is considered to be the transition between John’s prefigured baptism and the real baptism of Christ. The baptism of Jesus sanctified the waters so that they could be efficacious in taking away sin, even though the baptism which Jesus would institute would not become binding on all until after the Resurrection.

But I understand Catholics believe there are other things to do as well, other than water baptism, for salvation.

So I am checking with you what are the rest.

 

[Guojing]

In regards to salvation, these are the (very abridged) tenants for salvation:

1. Belief in God and adherence to the teachings (those that are de fide or ex-cathedra) of the Church,
2. Moral living according to the Decalogue (Ten Commandments)
3. Participation in the Sacraments [that includes baptism]
4. Submission to the authority of the Pope and the Ecclesial Hierarchy.

So to conclude, these 4 are also required for salvation?

 

[AveChristusRex]

So to conclude, these 4 are also required for salvation?

Unless I missed any, I believe so.

 

[The Liturgist]

The real scary number of adherents are Pentecostals and Charismatics. While Pentecosts can be numbered, Charismatics can't. No one has an accurate number....between 250-450 million in both camps. And the numbers are growing. The Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel beliefs are still all the rage, TBN and Daystar TV are going gangbusters....which is market driven appetite for the more sensational psuedo-spiritual gifts. Spiritual flim flam.

Indeed, since Charismatics exist in a number of existing denominations. They even tried to get a foothold in Orthodoxy, in a mainstream way in Eastern Orthodoxy in the 1970s, and more recently in the Coptic Orthodox Church by exploiting the lack of episcopal supervision in extra-diocesan areas. Pope Tawadros II solved that problem by abolishing the “general bishops” who existed only to ordain clergy for the churches in extra-diocesan areas, and creating new dioceses actual bishops who could closely supervise parishes and fire bishops who failed to teach Orthodox doctrine, for example, HG Abanoub who became the new bishop of Muqattam.

The people of Muqattam are pious and deserved a proper Orthodox church, but their church had become so heavily taken over by non-denominational charismatics that it looked like a movie theatre - no holy icons, no one had been to confession for as long as they could recall, and a lack of traditional Coptic hymnography. However, HG Abanoub was not merely an enforcer of Orthodoxy but a loving man - since Muqattam is a small but densely populated town, whose very impoverished people live off the meat of pigs which feed in the vast landfills of Cairo, and who suffered a famine when former President Mubarak ordered all their swine killed due to swine flu. So fortunately, HG Abanoub, whose role is almost like that of the archpriest of a large parish, is an elderly and extremely loving man, because it is only through love that people can be persuaded to return to a more traditional style of worship than the new norms that flow from the Charismatic movement. The last thing the Coptic Orthodox church needed was some kind of inquisition.

And thus the restoration has been a success. There has been no reactionary movement in opposition to the initiative of Pope Tawadros, which had been agitated for by various movements like “Return to Orthodoxy” and which of course required approval of the Holy Synod - the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, and his Greek Orthodox counterpart, are the presiding bishops of their churches, in communion with other autocephalous churches in the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox communions, not the absolute rulers.

Indeed, one charming story, which I believe is true, about the Coptic Orthodox church, that illustrates the role of the Coptic Pope is as follows: a diocesan bishop and the Pope were scheduled to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy, but the diocesan bishop was unavoidably detained. The Pope thus began the liturgy without him. When the bishop arrived, he was justifiably outraged, since this is a violation of the ancient canons, which prohibit bishops from one diocese (in the case of the Pope, that of Alexandria) from celebrating the divine liturgy in another diocese without the blessing of the diocesan bishop, which the Pope did not have, as it is granted in the course of the liturgical concelebration. Thus the Pope had uncanonically invaded the diocese of the bishop. In response, the bishop stomped the Pope’s mitre, smashing it. The Pope accepted this rebuke, because he realized he had committed a very serious breach of some of the most ancient and important canons of the early church (which used to apply in the West as well - see the rebuke delivered to St. Victor of Rome by St. Irenaeus of Lyons when St. Victor attempted to compel some Eastern churches to standardize their practice with that of Rome and the majority of other Eastern churches, which was not his place to do so. In the end the changes Pope Victor wanted (adoption of the Paschalion to replace the Quartodecimian system, thus standardizing the celebration of the Feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday following the vernal equinox, provided the date was no earlier than March 25th) were adopted, at the Council of Nicaea, roughly 175 years later, which was a council comprised almost exclusively of Greek, Egyptian and Syrian bishops, with only two Roman legates.

 

[The Liturgist]

Informative

But misleading, since baptism is part of the normal process of salvation. At any rate, since you were baptized as an infant, you are covered.

 

[Wansvic]

I was just wondering does a person need to be baptized in water in order to be saved ?

Yes. Scripture reveals it to be so. Jesus said unless a man is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. (John 3:3-5) And as prophesied by Jesus (Luke 24:47) Repentance and remission of sin would be preached in his name (the connection to water baptism) in all nations and would begin in Jerusalem. The NT message that included both water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit occurred in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:38)

John the Baptist introduced water baptism. It was later administered in the name of Jesus in accordance with His death, burial and resurrection. Note all detailed accounts reveal water baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18,10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

Paul instructs born again Corinthians concerning their water baptism in the name of Jesus. Because he knew baptism was to be in Jesus’ name: (Acts 22:16, 19:1-7) "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:13

Members of the church of Corinth that Paul water baptized:
"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." 1 Cor 1:14-16


Acts 2:38-39 (Jewish) The group did not receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed in Jesus. However, they were told they could expect the Holy Ghost at some point.
"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.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."


Acts 8:12-17 (Samaritans-half Jewish-half Gentile)
"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."


Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles)
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."


Acts 11:13-14
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.


Acts 19:2-6 (Disciples who did not realize they had to water baptized in Jesus name)
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Acts 22:14-16 (Paul's water baptism)
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Wansvic]

But misleading, since baptism is part of the normal process of salvation. At any rate, since you were baptized as an infant, you are covered.

Infant baptism is not biblical. The Apostle Peter established the conditions for those wishing to be water baptized. He stated everyone who believed in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was to repent, and obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin. Jesus made this reality possible for those willing to believe and obey. Infants do not have the capacity to chose to believe and obey God's command.

 

[Wansvic]

Informative

Per

The Liturgist post:​

Infant baptism is not biblical. The Apostle Peter established the conditions for those wishing to be water baptized. He stated everyone who believed in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was to repent, and obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin. Jesus made this reality possible for those willing to believe and obey. Infants do not have the capacity to chose to believe and obey God's command.

 

[Apple Sky]

Per

The Liturgist post:​

Infant baptism is not biblical. The Apostle Peter established the conditions for those wishing to be water baptized. He stated everyone who believed in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was to repent, and obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin. Jesus made this reality possible for those willing to believe and obey. Infants do not have the capacity to chose to believe and obey God's command.

Well this is not what @The Liturgist says.

 

[Wansvic]

Well this is not what @The Liturgist says.

That was my point. We must rely upon God's word over man's tradition. I shared what scripture reveals in a reply to your post. It was God who said that man makes God's word void with their tradition. (Mark 7:13) I encourage you to study scriptures relative to water baptism. And may God bless!

 

[Lukaris]

All of the household of Cornelius was baptized per Acts 10:47-48 per the wider chapter Acts 10:1-48. The Lord said not to forbid children ( Matthew 19:13-14). No one is forbidden by the Lord for he spoke on a broad level and Peter acted on a particular level.

 

[AveChristusRex]

All of the household of Cornelius was baptized per Acts 10:47-48 per the wider chapter Acts 10:1-48. The Lord said not to forbid children ( Matthew 19:13-14). No one is forbidden by the Lord for he spoke on a broad level and Peter acted on a particular level.

This; ill respond with more when I am home.

 

[AveChristusRex]

All of the household of Cornelius was baptized per Acts 10:47-48 per the wider chapter Acts 10:1-48. The Lord said not to forbid children ( Matthew 19:13-14). No one is forbidden by the Lord for he spoke on a broad level and Peter acted on a particular level.

As Lukaris stated, the Bible teaches that whole households were baptized:

• 1 Cor. 1:16: “And I [Paul] baptized also the household of Stephanas...”
• Acts 16:15: “And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household..."
• Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”

Households generally include children. Scripture connects the two:

• Gen. 18:19: “… he will command his children and his household after him…”
• Gen. 36:6: “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house.”

Since households generally include children—and the Bible repeatedly mentions that whole households were baptized—these passages alone make infant baptism a likely Biblical tradition. Moreover, Jesus clearly taught that every man must be baptized to be saved. In John 6:53, Jesus says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” But in John 3:5, he says: “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.” Jesus says unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Every man necessarily includes infants. It logically follows from the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 that infants should be baptized.

Secondly, Circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to Baptism. Circumcision was how males in the Old Testament entered a covenant relationship with God. If you were not circumcised, you were not in God’s covenant [I don't think any of us would disagree with this]. Colossians 2 teaches that baptism is the New Testament circumcision: “In [Jesus] 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: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith...” Well, as we all know, infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. In fact, notice what Peter says in his famous sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” This passage speaks of baptism and the blessings and forgiveness it offers. It says that the promise is also for children, who receive forgiveness through water baptism: “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”

Another good verse to cite is Mark 16:15-16: "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." It does not make a distinction between men, women, or children in this passage; rather, it states that we should preach to every creature, including children. This is important because Christ directly states that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and in this case, he is speaking about every creature, so the verse could be abridged to say, "...every creature that believes and is baptized shall be saved." Finally, the fathers of the Church also believed in infant baptism, having received this tradition from Jesus and the Apostles:

• Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, 244-248: “In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."
• Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
• St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

 

[The Liturgist]

That was my point. We must rely upon God's word over man's tradition. I shared what scripture reveals in a reply to your post. It was God who said that man makes God's word void with their tradition. (Mark 7:13) I encourage you to study scriptures relative to water baptism. And may God bless!

The problem is that Scripture does not say what you claim it says.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well this is not what @The Liturgist says.

What I say is of no special relevance - what matters is the correct interpretation of Scripture. And in addition to the baptisms of entire houses there is also a lack of an age restriction on the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19

The credobaptist view does not hold up to exegesis, and we also know that it was historically unknown to the early church, even as a doctrine they rejected. Rather, there is no trace of a movement of symbolic or memorialist baptism of adults prior to the Anabaptists of the 16th century.

 

[Wansvic]

As Lukaris stated, the Bible teaches that whole households were baptized:

• 1 Cor. 1:16: “And I [Paul] baptized also the household of Stephanas...”
• Acts 16:15: “And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household..."
• Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”

Households generally include children. Scripture connects the two:

• Gen. 18:19: “… he will command his children and his household after him…”
• Gen. 36:6: “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house.”

Since households generally include children—and the Bible repeatedly mentions that whole households were baptized—these passages alone make infant baptism a likely Biblical tradition. Moreover, Jesus clearly taught that every man must be baptized to be saved. In John 6:53, Jesus says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” But in John 3:5, he says: “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.” Jesus says unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Every man necessarily includes infants. It logically follows from the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 that infants should be baptized.

Secondly, Circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to Baptism. Circumcision was how males in the Old Testament entered a covenant relationship with God. If you were not circumcised, you were not in God’s covenant [I don't think any of us would disagree with this]. Colossians 2 teaches that baptism is the New Testament circumcision: “In [Jesus] 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: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith...” Well, as we all know, infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. In fact, notice what Peter says in his famous sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” This passage speaks of baptism and the blessings and forgiveness it offers. It says that the promise is also for children, who receive forgiveness through water baptism: “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”

Another good verse to cite is Mark 16:15-16: "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." It does not make a distinction between men, women, or children in this passage; rather, it states that we should preach to every creature, including children. This is important because Christ directly states that those who believe and are baptized shall be saved, and in this case, he is speaking about every creature, so the verse could be abridged to say, "...every creature that believes and is baptized shall be saved." Finally, the fathers of the Church also believed in infant baptism, having received this tradition from Jesus and the Apostles:

• Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, 244-248: “In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."
• Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
• St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

The practice of infant baptism is a manmade tradition begun well after the apostolic era; in the 3rd century. The word of God expresses all are to earnestly contend for the faith given to the apostles. (Jude 3) There is no direct biblical evidence of infants being water baptized. They do not have the ability to make an informed decision whether or not to believe and obey the commandment.

 

[Wansvic]

The problem is that Scripture does not say what you claim it says.

What have I misstated regarding the topic?

 

[AveChristusRex]

The practice of infant baptism is a manmade tradition begun well after the apostolic era; in the 3rd century. The word of God expresses all are to earnestly contend for the faith given to the apostles. (Jude 3) There is no direct biblical evidence of infants being water baptized. They do not have the ability to make an informed decision whether or not to believe and obey the commandment.

St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who died in 202 A.D., said: “‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). Moreover, St. Hippolytus of Rome, who died in 235 A.D., said: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

We can see here that this was a known and actualized belief before the 3rd Century, with St. Hippolytus saying to baptize them even before they can speak for themselves. This goes even into the 1st Century with St. Aristides the Athenian: "And when a child has been born to one of them [i.e., Christians], they give thanks to God [i.e., baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins" (Apology 15 [A.D. 140]).