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

[The Liturgist]

Repentance and, indeed, obedience are not singular acts. The entire Christian life is comprised of these two things: our repentance and our obedience. These are not things we do to earn salvation; but rather are our response.

If you raise an infant in the faith, then repentance and obedience will follow. In the same way that when an adult converts, so too does a life of repentance and obedience.

St. Peter did not say "Repent and then get baptized", but proclaims both to those gathered together on Pentecost.

If you say a child cannot be baptized because a child cannot repent, then you are adding conditions and stipulations to the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

This is entirely correct.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What the apostles practiced is recorded in the word of God. Writings that contradict the biblical record, no matter who penned them, are not to be accepted. It was Jesus who said, the Word will be the final judge. (John 12:48)

Then I will believe the Scriptures and reject you, as you are relying on your own manmade traditions which add to and contradict the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aaron112]

The Didache is not the Bible. And the Didache contains much that directly contradicts the word of God. The mode of water baptism is in scripture. It takes very little effort to find it for those who actually choose to search it out.

Tradition of men, like that, has become more important....... not good, no. Not in truth, no, but more popular.

 

[Aaron112]

“Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh! 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for those far away — as many as Adonai our God may call!”

40 He pressed his case with many other arguments and kept pleading with them, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!”

41 So those who accepted what he said were immersed, and there were added to the group that day about three thousand people.

 

[Wansvic]

On the contrary, Holy Tradition is endorsed in verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The context for those verses you cite eisegetically the Pharisaical tradition, which became the basis for Rabinnical Judaism.

The Apostolic Tradition, which is preserved by the Orthodox, and also in some high church Anglican, confessional Lutheran, and other liturgical Protestant churches, and in traditional Roman Catholic congregations that reject modernism, particularly those which retain the Traditional Latin Mass and in the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, was not the subject of those statements.

This is why the leading figures of the Reformation such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley expressly recognized the role of Tradition in assisting in the interpretation of Scripture. Hence the Anglican tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which adds Experience to the above.

What Martin Luther was seeking to do with Sola Scriptura, as my confessional Lutheran friends like @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm, was to correct obvious errors that crept into the medieval Roman Catholic Church (which had contributed to the schism with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054). He was not seeking to do away with most fixtures of traditional Western Christianity, and thus Luther celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday, made the sign of the cross, and even prayed a modified version of the Hail Mary.

Likewise, high church Anglicans retained many of these traditions, and would in the 19th century restore those that had been wrongfully suppressed in order to appease the Puritans in the aftermath of the English Civil War (and which were not suppressed by the Scottish and Non Juring Episcopalians, who ordained the first Anglican bishop for the United States, after the Church of England was prevented from continuing to provide episcopal support such as ordaining presbyters for the former British colonies for political reasons).

And of course the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox had the fortune to never get caught in a power struggle with Charlemagne (which was a key event that would precipitate the emergence of Papal Supremacy), and likewise never underwent a dogmatic shift (which the Roman Catholics demarcate by saying that St. John of Damascus was the last Patristic theologian, and by referring to subsequent theologians, whose teachings were innovative and in some cases arguably at odds with Patristic theology, at least that of the Greek and Syrian fathers, as Scholastic, starting with Anselm of Canterbury.

Of course, Scholastic Theology was by no means entirely antithetical to the received tradition - some of what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote was very insigntful, for example. But there is a noticeable distinction between the writings of the Fathers and the Orthodox theologians on the one hand, and the Schoolmen on the other. In particular, the idea of systematic theology seems to have originated with Aquinas and was later taken up by John Calvin, with their Summa and Institutes respectively being the first two widely known works in the field, and subsequent systematic theology has been dominated by Calvinists, most notably Karl Barth and his ponderous eight volume Church Dogmatics.

The two scriptures you note, reference keeping the tradition taught by Paul and the original apostles; meaning what is found in their writings that make up the word of God.

 

[Wansvic]

Repentance and, indeed, obedience are not singular acts. The entire Christian life is comprised of these two things: our repentance and our obedience. These are not things we do to earn salvation; but rather are our response.

If you raise an infant in the faith, then repentance and obedience will follow. In the same way that when an adult converts, so too does a life of repentance and obedience.

St. Peter did not say "Repent and then get baptized", but proclaims both to those gathered together on Pentecost.

If you say a child cannot be baptized because a child cannot repent, then you are adding conditions and stipulations to the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Peter's instructions to believers include the need to both repent AND be baptized in the name of Jesus. (water baptism) Repentance involves making the decision to turn from ones sinful lifestyle and pursue being born again. Those willing to submit in obedience to God's command are baptized in water in the name of Jesus. A promise is given of receiving the Holy Ghost as well. The ability to live the life God intended is an ongoing process made possible for the born again believer by the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

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.

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." Acts 2:36-42

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In addition, multiple scriptures confirm baptisms took place in water with no mention of sprinkling:

Matt 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway OUT OF THE WATER: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:9-10
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
And straightway COMING UP OUT OF THE WATER, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Matt 3:5-6
Then went out to him (John the Baptist) Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
And were baptized of him IN JORDAN,

My analysis.

Mark 1:9-10 and Mathew 3:16. Major problems here. Jesus coming out of the water describes what happened AFTER Jesus was baptized NOT DURING his baptism. DUH! We have two actions going on here. Jesus being baptized and coming out of the water are separate actions. In both of these passages of Scripture, once Jesus is baptized he comes out of the water...meaning that he went to the shore or bank of the river AFTER he was baptized.

We say this to our children all the time....if our children are playing at the ocean on the shore or trying to find polliwogs in a stream we say...."Get our of the water" meaning that THEY WERE NOT NECESSARILY IMMERSED but they were in the water getting wet.

To read immersion baptism into these passages an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,”

Acts 8:38
Acts 8 is a very poor text to establish immersion only baptism. Some have called this example: The Baptist Doctrine of Double Dipping....for to affirm the Eunuch was dunked, is to affirm Phillip also was dunked at the same time. No kidding!

And the text demonstrates this. The all important verses for immersionists is 8:38-39a "and they both went down (κατέβησαν) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν) out of the water....

How do Baptists get immersion baptism from this text? They went down into the water “as going under, or submersion in water” and “they came up out of the water” meaning they resurfaced.

What is the problem here? Pay attention to the pronouns….the two Greek verbs which depict movement are Third Person Plurals. Whatever Phillip does the Eunuch does…vice versa. Whatever is attributed the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

and they both went down (κατέβησαν, 3P Plural) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν 3P Plural) out of the water,

What does this mean?

• According to the immersionist theory of this baptism, both the Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed.
• They went in and he baptized him AND they came out. Because of the plural pronoun "they", whatever is attributed to the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

What is Luke trying to convey?

• Duel Immersion of both the baptizer and baptizee?
• Is Luke trying to inform us how the Eunuch was baptized is more important than him being baptized?
• Is Luke also trying to inform us that dual immersion is prescribed for all Christian to follow henceforth?
• How many immersionist preachers go under the water with the ones being baptized?
• Does Luke really want his readers to believe that Phillip immersed himself first and then the Eunuch?
• Does this mean every time a preacher administers baptism, he must get dunked also?

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,” If you want to find immersion baptism in the Bible you will, by doing an injustice to the actual context.

What about the 3,000 people baptized on Pentecost Day?

• Did 3,000 people bring an extra change of clothes and a towel?
• Did 3,000 people walk around wet all day?
• Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G strings?
• Did 3,000 people go skinny dippin'?
• Was the weather warm that day? Could it have been cold?
• Jerusalem is located on mountain top. Where is all this water to come from to immerse 3,000 people? How would you like it if you were the 2,999th person baptized in that bio-harzardous soup? My goodness....toilet paper hadn't been invented yet

 

[Wansvic]

That is irrelevant. Your statement was in reference to practice in apostolic times. The Didache is an historical Christian document that records Christian practice from apostolic times.



Share with the class what the Didache says that contradicts the word of God.



Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to show where Scripture commands a specific mode of baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

The point is the Didache was not written by the original apostles: The Bible instructs people are to hold fast to the apostles’ doctrine/teachings. (Acts 2:42) It was the Apostle Paul who said after his death men would begin speaking perverse things, drawing people away from the truth. (Acts 20:28-32) Perverse things are contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.

The following Didache instructions do not exist, and in fact are contrary to what's found in the biblical record:

Confess your sins in church

Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. Having instructed him in all of these teachings, baptize the catechumen in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, then baptize in other water. And if you cannot in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let both the baptizer and the catechumen fast, and also any others who are able. And be sure that the catechumen fasts a day or two before.

FASTING d o NoT let not your fasts fall on the same days as the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. Keep your fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Pray the Lord’s Prayer 3 x a day. - CONCERNING PRAYER d o NoT pray as the hypocrites either, but pray as the Lord commanded in His Gospel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for thine is the power and the glory unto ages of ages. Pray this way three times each day.

Concerning apostles and prophets, act according to the Gospel’s teaching. Receive every apostle as the Lord. He should not stay for more than a single day, or two days if necessary. But if he remains for three days, he is a false prophet. When he leaves, let the apostle receive nothing except bread, until he finds a place to stay. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Do not test or judge any prophet who speaks in the Spirit. Every other sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. And not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only he who follows the ways of the Lord. From his behavior, then, you will know a false prophet from a true prophet. Any prophet who orders a meal in Spirit will not eat from it, but if he does eat of it, he is a false prophet. Any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do the things he teaches, is a false prophet. Every true prophet, if he performs a worldly mystery of the Church, but does not teach others to do likewise, he must not be judged by you. He has his judgment in the presence of God, as with the prophets of old. If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me money,” do not listen to him. But if he tells you to give to others who are in need, let no one judge him.

N ow concerning the eucharistic thanksgiving, give thanks in this way. First, as concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David,a which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. Then as regards the broken bread: We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. ????As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, ???? u Acts 15:29. v Mat. 28:19. w Mat. 6:16. x Mat. 6:5f. y Mat. 6:9f. z 1 Cor. 11:23-25. a John 15:1. b Acts 3:13, 26. c John 3:15, 5:26, 6:68f. DIDACHE 9 so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ unto ages of ages. Do not let anyone eat or drink of this Eucharist who has not been baptized into the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said, “Do not give the holy things to the dogs.”


GaTher together each Sunday,a break bread and give thanks,???? first confessing your sins, ???? that your sacrifice may be pure.

 

[Wansvic]

Then I will believe the Scriptures and reject you, as you are relying on your own manmade traditions which add to and contradict the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

My understanding is supported by scripture. And scripture is the final authority.

 

[Wansvic]

My analysis.

Mark 1:9-10 and Mathew 3:16. Major problems here. Jesus coming out of the water describes what happened AFTER Jesus was baptized NOT DURING his baptism. DUH! We have two actions going on here. Jesus being baptized and coming out of the water are separate actions. In both of these passages of Scripture, once Jesus is baptized he comes out of the water...meaning that he went to the shore or bank of the river AFTER he was baptized.

We say this to our children all the time....if our children are playing at the ocean on the shore or trying to find polliwogs in a stream we say...."Get our of the water" meaning that THEY WERE NOT NECESSARILY IMMERSED but they were in the water getting wet.

To read immersion baptism into these passages an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,”

Acts 8:38
Acts 8 is a very poor text to establish immersion only baptism. Some have called this example: The Baptist Doctrine of Double Dipping....for to affirm the Eunuch was dunked, is to affirm Phillip also was dunked at the same time. No kidding!

And the text demonstrates this. The all important verses for immersionists is 8:38-39a "and they both went down (κατέβησαν) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν) out of the water....

How do Baptists get immersion baptism from this text? They went down into the water “as going under, or submersion in water” and “they came up out of the water” meaning they resurfaced.

What is the problem here? Pay attention to the pronouns….the two Greek verbs which depict movement are Third Person Plurals. Whatever Phillip does the Eunuch does…vice versa. Whatever is attributed the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

and they both went down (κατέβησαν, 3P Plural) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν 3P Plural) out of the water,

What does this mean?

• According to the immersionist theory of this baptism, both the Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed.
• They went in and he baptized him AND they came out. Because of the plural pronoun "they", whatever is attributed to the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

What is Luke trying to convey?

• Duel Immersion of both the baptizer and baptizee?
• Is Luke trying to inform us how the Eunuch was baptized is more important than him being baptized?
• Is Luke also trying to inform us that dual immersion is prescribed for all Christian to follow henceforth?
• How many immersionist preachers go under the water with the ones being baptized?
• Does Luke really want his readers to believe that Phillip immersed himself first and then the Eunuch?
• Does this mean every time a preacher administers baptism, he must get dunked also?

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,” If you want to find immersion baptism in the Bible you will, by doing an injustice to the actual context.

What about the 3,000 people baptized on Pentecost Day?

• Did 3,000 people bring an extra change of clothes and a towel?
• Did 3,000 people walk around wet all day?
• Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G strings?
• Did 3,000 people go skinny dippin'?
• Was the weather warm that day? Could it have been cold?
• Jerusalem is located on mountain top. Where is all this water to come from to immerse 3,000 people? How would you like it if you were the 2,999th person baptized in that bio-harzardous soup? My goodness....toilet paper hadn't been invented yet

As stated the word baptism actually means to immerse: NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:

Secondly, sprinkling does not require going into a body of water.

Thirdly, immersion requires a person to assist in placing the person under the water (a picture of burial) and bringing them back out.

Your objections to why 3,000 could not have been immersed on the Day of Pentecost is foolish. The scripture reveals they were baptized and added to the body of Christ on that day, Period! All the supposed excuses one can come up with does not negate the fact what is clearly revealed in the sum of the word of God. (Psalm 119:160)

 

[Wansvic]

My analysis.

Mark 1:9-10 and Mathew 3:16. Major problems here. Jesus coming out of the water describes what happened AFTER Jesus was baptized NOT DURING his baptism. DUH! ...

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, (NOT AFTER) went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" Matthew 3:16

 

[AveChristusRex]

The point is the Didache was not written by the original apostles: The Bible instructs people are to hold fast to the apostles’ doctrine/teachings. (Acts 2:42) It was the Apostle Paul who said after his death men would begin speaking perverse things, drawing people away from the truth. (Acts 20:28-32) Perverse things are contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.

The following Didache instructions do not exist, and in fact are contrary to what's found in the biblical record:

Confess your sins in church

Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. Having instructed him in all of these teachings, baptize the catechumen in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, then baptize in other water. And if you cannot in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let both the baptizer and the catechumen fast, and also any others who are able. And be sure that the catechumen fasts a day or two before.

FASTING d o NoT let not your fasts fall on the same days as the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. Keep your fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Pray the Lord’s Prayer 3 x a day. - CONCERNING PRAYER d o NoT pray as the hypocrites either, but pray as the Lord commanded in His Gospel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for thine is the power and the glory unto ages of ages. Pray this way three times each day.

Concerning apostles and prophets, act according to the Gospel’s teaching. Receive every apostle as the Lord. He should not stay for more than a single day, or two days if necessary. But if he remains for three days, he is a false prophet. When he leaves, let the apostle receive nothing except bread, until he finds a place to stay. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Do not test or judge any prophet who speaks in the Spirit. Every other sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. And not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only he who follows the ways of the Lord. From his behavior, then, you will know a false prophet from a true prophet. Any prophet who orders a meal in Spirit will not eat from it, but if he does eat of it, he is a false prophet. Any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do the things he teaches, is a false prophet. Every true prophet, if he performs a worldly mystery of the Church, but does not teach others to do likewise, he must not be judged by you. He has his judgment in the presence of God, as with the prophets of old. If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me money,” do not listen to him. But if he tells you to give to others who are in need, let no one judge him.

N ow concerning the eucharistic thanksgiving, give thanks in this way. First, as concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David,a which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. Then as regards the broken bread: We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. ????As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, ???? u Acts 15:29. v Mat. 28:19. w Mat. 6:16. x Mat. 6:5f. y Mat. 6:9f. z 1 Cor. 11:23-25. a John 15:1. b Acts 3:13, 26. c John 3:15, 5:26, 6:68f. DIDACHE 9 so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ unto ages of ages. Do not let anyone eat or drink of this Eucharist who has not been baptized into the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said, “Do not give the holy things to the dogs.”


GaTher together each Sunday,a break bread and give thanks,???? first confessing your sins, ???? that your sacrifice may be pure.

These are all followed by the Church. The Catholic understanding clarifies the distinction between human traditions and Sacred Tradition. Christ rebuked the Pharisees and scribes for elevating human traditions (e.g., their ritual handwashing) above the commandments of God. However, in Catholic teaching, divine revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum, 9). Sacred Tradition includes teachings, liturgical practices, and oral teachings handed down from the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.").

The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, safeguards the authentic interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum, 10), so I don't really see how this verse is relevant to the matter. You said that "there is always a correct interpretation," and your right, but it is not that tradition is condemned, but is side by side with the Scriptures. Also, Matthew 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Jesus recognizes the authority of their teaching office while criticizing their hypocrisy. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, St. Paul commends the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," so the traditions held by the Church came from the Apostles, i.e., St. Peter directly.

According to the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Session II, it states: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril." Thus we can see that this Apostolic tradition continues through the Pontiffs of Rome, and thus their teachings and traditions.

 

[AveChristusRex]

As stated the word baptism actually means to immerse: NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:

Secondly, sprinkling does not require going into a body of water.

Thirdly, immersion requires a person to assist in placing the person under the water (a picture of burial) and bringing them back out.

Your objections to why 3,000 could not have been immersed on the Day of Pentecost is foolish. The scripture reveals they were baptized and added to the body of Christ on that day, Period! All the supposed excuses one can come up with does not negate the fact what is clearly revealed in the sum of the word of God. (Psalm 119:160)

Consider Romans 6:3-4: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." From a symbolic perspective, immersion better portrays being “buried” with Christ. And that is at least one reason why the Catholic Church teaches immersion to be a valid form of baptism (cf. CCC 628; 1239). But baptizo is not limited to immersion in the New Testament. It can also mean, as Newman points out: “to wash,” as in, the “washing” of hands. In fact, according to Luke 11:37-38, a “ritual washing” and “the washing of hands” can be joined as one: "While [Jesus] was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (Gr. ebaptisthe, aorist, third person singular form of baptizo) before dinner." This was obviously not immersion. There were “baptisms” the Pharisees did that would involve full immersion, but this was not one of them. Mark 7:3-4 gives us an even more complete picture of the nature of the “baptism” being referred to here: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands. . .” The Greek word used here for wash is ebaptisthe, or “baptize.”

Moreover, Jesus prophesied that with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the apostles would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5), and yet its fulfillment in Acts 2:4 is described in two distinct ways, neither of which indicating “immersion.” In Luke 24:49, for example, we find this same “baptism in the Holy Spirit” referred to as being “clothed” upon: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high." To be “clothed” does not indicate an immersion; rather, a partial covering. And yet, this is clearly baptism in the Holy Spirit. We should also look at Acts 2:16-17 where we read: "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”" This biblical text describes the Holy Spirit being “poured out” upon the recipients of this great gift. Thus, it would be unbiblical to claim that “baptism” can only refer to immersion.

 

[The Liturgist]

The two scriptures you note, reference keeping the tradition taught by Paul and the original apostles; meaning what is found in their writings that make up the word of God.

The statements do not limit themselves to the content of the New Testament, which was not even defined as a canon until the fourth century (and indeed, it was largely through the writings of St. Irenaeus that the four canonical Gospels were separated from other texts, some of which were blatantly Gnostic (such as “The Gospel of Truth”, the “Gospel of Mary” and the exceedingly blasphemous and vile “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”, but others of which could have been included had care not been taken by Christian bishops.

These include the Aramaic “Gospel of the Hebrews” which survives only in quotations, and the Gospel of Peter, of which we have a fragment of the passion that is similiar to the canonical Gospels at least until the resurrection narrative, but with some oddities noted in the third century and in the present, and the “Gospel of Thomas”, a list of sayings of our Lord that largely agrees with the synoptics but which I and many others believe was corrupted by Gnostics, and the “Protoevangelion of James” which agrees with Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrine but which was believed by early church fathers to have been written psuedepigraphically in the second century.

There are several other books which came even closer to being made canonical, such as 1 Barnabas, which is pseudepigraphical and problematic, 3 Corinthians, Laodiceans, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Likewise, there are books which many bishops did not trust and wanted to exclude, but which were discerned by most bishops following the lead of St. Athanasius to be valid and important, such as Revelation, Jude, 2 John, 3 John and 2 Peter, which were omitted from the original edition of the Syriac Aramaic translation known as the Peshitta, but later added by the Syriac Orthodox from a translation by St. Thomas of Harqel in order to ensure their canon matched that of the Coptic Orthodox and Armenian churches, as St. Athanasius was highly respected throughout Oriental Orthodoxy (and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western church).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Furthermore, the word baptism means to immerse: NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism.

An ablution is a ceremonial washing of ones body or a part of it. And this definition which YOU PROVIDED fits the meaning of the NT Jewish baptisms in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 in which baptizo contextually can not mean immersion. Jesus and the disciples DID NOT IMMERSE THEMSELVES during these washings. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[CoreyD]

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

If you are looking for the Bible's answer, rather than opinions of people... many of which you will get, here...

According to Jesus, who is the Lord and savior of all those that will have God's favor, disciples of Christ must be baptized.
Matthew 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

If baptism is unimportant, so is Jesus' commands, and any relationship with God, is void.
John 14:15 - “If you love me, obey my commandments.
John 14:21 - Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”

If we want God's approval, we must obey his commandment, and be baptized.
This is made clear throughout the Christian Greek scriptures.

 

[CoreyD]

So we really need to be baptized in water ?

Is Baptism in water, you ask?
Matthew 3:5, 6; Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:5-9; Luke 3:21, 22; Luke 7:28-30; John 3:22, 23; Acts 1:5; Acts 2:38-42; Acts 8:12-17; Acts 8:36-38; Acts 9:18, 19; Acts 10:46-48; Acts 16:14, 15; Acts 16:33, 34; Acts 19:2-7; Acts 22:15, 16; 1 Peter 3:21, 22

If you are looking for every verse to say water, don't hold your breath , but in the scriptures, water baptism was a requirement, and the other baptism - baptism by holy spirit, was for those selected by God, to be kings and priests with Christ - spirit adopted sons of God. Romans 8:12-17

Yes. The scriptures refers to baptism by water.
The Greek word baptizó, is to baptize, to immerse, to dip.

 

[Apple Sky]

If we want God's approval, we must obey his commandment, and be baptized.
This is made clear throughout the Christian Greek scriptures.

But I've already been baptized by water when I was baby.

 

[CoreyD]

But I've already been baptized by water when I was baby.

Were you?
What does immerse mean, and how does a baby qualify as a disciple of Christ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Peter's instructions to believers include the need to both repent AND be baptized in the name of Jesus. (water baptism) Repentance involves making the decision to turn from ones sinful lifestyle and pursue being born again. Those willing to submit in obedience to God's command are baptized in water in the name of Jesus. A promise is given of receiving the Holy Ghost as well. The ability to live the life God intended is an ongoing process made possible for the born again believer by the indwelling presence of God's Holy Spirit.

St. Peter wasn't speaking to believers, but non-believers. The crowd to whom Peter preached his sermon was a crowd of non-believing Jews who had come to Jerusalem as pilgrims for the Feast of Shavu'ot (Pentecost). As such the crowd was comprised of disparate Jewish persons who spoke different languages and dialects. Which is why it was noteworthy that when the Holy Spirit condescended and the fledgling Church gathered in the upper room began to speak in diverse languages by the power of the Holy Spirit, that these languages were the languages of the gathered pilgrims. "Are these not Galileans?" some in the crowd asked, "Yet they speak in our languages". Many in the crowd mocked what they observed, "They are drunk" is what they said. These were non-believers. By the time St. Peter was done preaching, the Holy Spirit had worked the power of the Gospel into their hearts, and they believed, and were received into the Church through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism "about three thousand" St. Luke tells us.

It is true enough that, when the Law is preached and we feel the sting of a guilty conscience ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"), we experience the guilt of our sin as our wretchedness is reflected toward us by the good use of the Law. And from this despair we have guilt, and indeed grieve; and that the Gospel creates and works faith, and indeed forgiveness. For the guilt of sin can only be alleviated and healed by the grace and kindness, the love and mercy, the forgiveness that is from God alone, through Christ His Son who suffered, died, and rose again for us and our justification. That we are no longer enemies, but indeed children of God, by the grace He so richly pours out upon us.

And, therefore, our response is that of repentance, metanoia; the change of mind as we are brought from a state of enemity against God to that of being beloved children who know God as Abba, Father.

But this metanoia is not a singular act, or a singular change. For since even after conversion the Old Man stubbornly persists, and must always be dealt with, so the Law must always be preached; that upon hearing what we ought to do (and ought not do) we see again our own unrighteousness before the Holy and Righteous God who is Just Judge of the living and the dead. For in this St. John reminds us, "If we say we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" this is the danger of living an impenitent life; but the penitent life of confession brings us again to hearing and beholding the mercy of God in Christ: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

We must, therefore, always remain humble at the foot of the Cross, for here in our weakness does God find us, and in His mercy embrace us and clothe us with His Son, and with the righteousness of His Son. So that though our sins be as scarlet, yet shall we be white as snow. These robes which God Himself clothes us--the wedding clothes of the Great Banquet--are a gift.

So that even as the Old Man must always be put to death through repentance, from the day we first converted to the day we breathe our final breath and step before Glory; so too the New Man is vitalized and renewed day by day by the mercy and kindness of God. So that the life of the Christian is one marked by repentance and good works; not as the prerequisite of conversion but as the fruit of a converted life; of a life that is being changed day-by-day by grace.

To believe that one singular word or act of repentance suffices is a dangerous belief--for it puts one's own soul in mortal danger. For here mortal sin lay ready to shipwreck our faith, as we deny the work of the Spirit, quenching Him, resisting Him, and His work of repairing and sanctifying the sinful heart and converting this heart of stone to a heart of flesh that trusts in, and has full confidence in, Jesus Christ and His finished work.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

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.

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." Acts 2:36-42

And here you can see the point I've made laid out clear as testified in Holy Scripture.

Pay attention to what is not in the text: That only adults can be baptized, that children cannot be baptized, that a person cannot be baptized unless they perform some work of repentance. Instead that divine work of repentance is found here: "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine" Here is the work of the Spirit to keep them in faith, by abiding in the word, and a penitent life. This is part of what it means to "do works worthy of repentance".

-CryptoLutheran