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

[Aaron112]

So we really need to be baptized in water ?

It was/is a command, not a suggestion. Tradition over-rode the command, but cannot change it.

 

[Diamond72]

It was/is a command, not a suggestion.

Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is a profound and transformative experience in the Christian faith. It refers to a spiritual event where a believer is filled with the Holy Spirit, empowering them for service, witness, and a deeper relationship with God. Here's a detailed look at what it means:

Key Aspects of Baptism in the Holy Spirit:​

1. Spiritual Empowerment:
   • Baptism in the Holy Spirit is often associated with receiving spiritual power to live a victorious Christian life and to be effective in ministry.
   • Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
2. Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts:
   • This experience can be accompanied by the manifestation of spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, and other supernatural gifts.
   • 1 Corinthians 12:7-11: This passage lists various gifts of the Holy Spirit that believers may receive.
3. Deepened Relationship with God:
   • Baptism in the Holy Spirit often leads to a more intimate and dynamic relationship with God. Believers may experience a heightened sense of God's presence and guidance.
   • John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Counselor who will live with and be in believers.
4. Boldness in Witnessing:
   • Believers who are baptized in the Holy Spirit often find new boldness and effectiveness in sharing their faith and witnessing for Christ.
   • Acts 4:31: "After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."
5. Life Transformation:
   • This baptism can result in significant personal transformation, marked by a greater love for God and others, increased faith, and a deeper sense of purpose.
   • Galatians 5:22-23: The Fruit of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self-control, becomes more evident in the believer's life.

Biblical Examples:​

• Pentecost: The most notable example is the Day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, where the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, enabling them to speak in other tongues and boldly proclaim the Gospel.
• Cornelius' Household: In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard Peter's message, demonstrating that this experience was not limited to the apostles.

Diverse Perspectives:​

• Different Christian denominations have varying views on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. For example, Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions place a strong emphasis on this experience, while other denominations may interpret it differently or integrate it into the broader process of Christian growth and sanctification.

Overall, being baptized in the Holy Spirit is seen as a powerful and enriching experience that deepens one's faith and equips believers for their spiritual journey and mission.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course a non Catholic would think this.

The Council of Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences, and other abuses which had prompted schism on the part of Luther, and likewise Vatican II created the basis for reception in both kinds, and vernacular liturgy, which were the main objections of the early Moravians. I was under the impression you supported these councils.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was/is a command, not a suggestion. Tradition over-rode the command, but cannot change it.

Here you are mistaken: the tradition of baptism by immersion remains the norm, for infants and adults alike, in the Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern churches, but most recognize baptisms of other churches performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, including my infant baptism which was performed by aspersion in the United Methodist Church, since these comply with the command known as The Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, from which infants are not exempted.

It is completely safe to baptize infants by immersion, and the majority of the 300 million members of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox community and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East were baptized as infants, by immersion. Immersion is not used only in situations where, for example, the person being baptized is connected to medical equipment that would preclude it. But for a healthy infant, there is no danger to baptism with three full immersions, which is the normal Orthodox procedure regardless of the age of the person being baptized.

 

[Wansvic]

Ain't buyin' what your sellin'! Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16, Luke 11:38, and Mark 7:4 CLEARLY demonstrate not all baptisms administered in the NT are immersion. Strong confirmation bias here.

As for sprinkling and burial baptism.... Romans 6 has nothing to do with the administration of baptism.

Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.

“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.

We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.

Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.

A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.

The plain text rule is we are united with Christ death, burial, crucifixion, and resurrection in each of our baptisms. This is God’s action to us. It is the benefit that God gives us in baptism and gives us the result of all of Christ’s work ….the forgiveness of sins.

United with Christ is the result of baptism, not the mode of it. How water is applied to the human body is not specifically addressed anywhere in Romans 6.

We all have the choice whether to accept or reject the written word. And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling. It is the sum of God's word that reveals this truth.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling.

All baptisms in the NT are descriptive. No prescriptive command like "Thus saith the Lord." My problem with Baptists and American Evangelicals is they take a descriptive text and turn it into a prescriptive text. A real no-no.

There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform a baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.

 

[AveChristusRex]

The Council of Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences, and other abuses which had prompted schism on the part of Luther, and likewise Vatican II created the basis for reception in both kinds, and vernacular liturgy, which were the main objections of the early Moravians. I was under the impression you supported these councils.

The Second Vatican Council is very controversial in Catholicism, with many [including myself] not accepting its decisions. Many hypotheses have been formulated to justify this position, e.g., the Thesis of Cassisicum or others. All Catholics accept the Council of Trent; but while Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences and other sins, the Church was thrown into confusion at the behest of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the Pope was imprisoned and his successors had to live under occupation until the Lateran Treaty in the 1910s. This, thus, is why the post-16th century was not a good time for the Church, as the authority of the Pope over the Papal States was broken, and the 'Prisoner of the Vatican' was ongoing.

 

[Wansvic]

Here you are mistaken: the tradition of baptism by immersion remains the norm, for infants and adults alike, in the Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern churches, but most recognize baptisms of other churches performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, including my infant baptism which was performed by aspersion in the United Methodist Church, since these comply with the command known as The Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, from which infants are not exempted.

It is completely safe to baptize infants by immersion, and the majority of the 300 million members of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox community and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East were baptized as infants, by immersion. Immersion is not used only in situations where, for example, the person being baptized is connected to medical equipment that would preclude it. But for a healthy infant, there is no danger to baptism with three full immersions, which is the normal Orthodox procedure regardless of the age of the person being baptized.

Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet. Baptism requires faith in Jesus, and a willingness to turn away from a sinful lifestyle something Infants are not capable of.

 

[Wansvic]

All baptisms in the NT are descriptive. No prescriptive command like "Thus saith the Lord." My problem with Baptists and American Evangelicals is they take a descriptive text and turn it into a prescriptive text. A real no-no.

There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform a baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Paul said not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Romans 10:16-17)

Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, HE CANNOT SEE the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) And it was Paul who asked, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? and went on to explain how to accomplish being born again. (Acts 19:1-7) Those who were willing to believe and obey experienced the promised reality. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet.

According to Baptist theology....this is entirely correct. Baptists see NO PROMISES attached to baptism. Paedobaptists (Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Anglicans, RCC and the Orthodox) baptize infants because of the promises attached to baptism and see baptism as a remedy for original sin.

 

[concretecamper]

The Council of Trent prohibited the sale of indulgences,

Ok. Not sure how this is a response to my post.

and other abuses which had prompted schism on the part of Luther

Luther should have followed the example of St Catherine of Sienna. Instead, he chose a path of destruction.

 

[concretecamper]

The Second Vatican Council is very controversial in Catholicism, with many [including myself] not accepting its decisions.

It is controversial because many do not know what VII taught, they know what they have heard VII taught, which are 2 different things. So far, I have not come across anything from VII that changes what Trent taught.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Baptizing infants, regardless of the mode issue, achieves nothing more than getting them wet. Baptism requires faith in Jesus, and a willingness to turn away from a sinful lifestyle something Infants are not capable of.

Why do you continue to add your own man made traditions to the word of God?

Here is what is required of us for Jesus to save us: be sinners. Because "here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance, Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." (1 Timothy 1:15)

It is precisely because we are sinners that we need to be saved, saved from our sin and the disasterous eternal consequences of our sin.

If it were possible to turn away from our sin then we wouldn't need a Savior.

Faith comes from God, it is His gift, not something we do (Ephesians 2:8-9)

When an infant is baptized they receives the same gift and promise anyone else does. That is, faith.

For "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17)
and we have been washed "by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26)

Whoever is washed in the waters of baptism receives the word of God, the very word which says "for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38); the same word that says "He saved us, not by righteous things we have done, but by His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5); the same word that says "for all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

God doesn't deny infants the life giving grace and mercy of His Son.

Jesus died for babies too. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever receives Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

Notice that no where do the Scriptures say "but not infants". No exception is given. God's free gift of eternal life is for all sinners. Including the sinners who wear diapers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

We all have the choice whether to accept or reject the written word. And when taken in context, scripture does reveal baptisms were administered by immersion not sprinkling. It is the sum of God's word that reveals this truth.

As described in the New Testament, the only baptisms ever administered were to people living in the first century AD. Does that mean only people in the first century can be baptized?

When you fail to follow the very basic exegetical principle of description is not prescription then we can create any silly doctrine we want.

You might think my example above about only baptizing first century people is very silly, but it's not any more silly than what you are already doing.

Let's run a hypothetical: For the sake of argument I'll say "the Bible, taken in context, only reveals that baptism were administered to people in the first century, therefore only people in the first century could receive baptism."

How would you argue against that? Don't merely flippantly dismiss it because it's silly, make an argument. Because my goal isn't to present a silly argument just to make a silly argument, but to demonstrate the importance of good exegetical principles.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AveChristusRex]

It is controversial because many do not know what VII taught, they know what they have heard VII taught, which are 2 different things. So far, I have not come across anything from VII that changes what Trent taught.

This is not the appropriate thread to speak on this, but I will provide one example of VII changing declarations from Trent. Speaking on the Liturgical changes specifically, Sacrosanctum Concilium #40 says, “However, in some places or in some situations, there may arise a pressing need for a more radical adaptation of the liturgy.” This is reputed by Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” Moreover, in Sacrosanctum Concilium #50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.” This was reputed by Pope Pius VI' Auctorem fidei, #33, which said, “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. This would be an appropriate discussion in a separate thread, but you specifically mentioned that VII did not contradict Trent, and that is [with respect to you of course ] rather spurious.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Instead, he chose a path of destruction.

Boo!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Boo!

Dang that Luther and his *checks notes* problem with abuses scandalizing Christ's Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Why do you continue to add your own man made traditions to the word of God?

Here is what is required of us for Jesus to save us: be sinners. Because "here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance, Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." (1 Timothy 1:15)

It is precisely because we are sinners that we need to be saved, saved from our sin and the disasterous eternal consequences of our sin.

If it were possible to turn away from our sin then we wouldn't need a Savior.

Faith comes from God, it is His gift, not something we do (Ephesians 2:8-9)

When an infant is baptized they receives the same gift and promise anyone else does. That is, faith.

For "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17)
and we have been washed "by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26)

Whoever is washed in the waters of baptism receives the word of God, the very word which says "for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38); the same word that says "He saved us, not by righteous things we have done, but by His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5); the same word that says "for all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

God doesn't deny infants the life giving grace and mercy of His Son.

Jesus died for babies too. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever receives Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

Notice that no where do the Scriptures say "but not infants". No exception is given. God's free gift of eternal life is for all sinners. Including the sinners who wear diapers.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen and Amen. Very concise.

 

[concretecamper]

This is not the appropriate thread to speak on this, but I will provide one example of VII changing declarations from Trent. Speaking on the Liturgical changes specifically, Sacrosanctum Concilium #40 says, “However, in some places or in some situations, there may arise a pressing need for a more radical adaptation of the liturgy.” This is reputed by Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex-cathedra: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” Moreover, in Sacrosanctum Concilium #50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.” This was reputed by Pope Pius VI' Auctorem fidei, #33, which said, “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it. This would be an appropriate discussion in a separate thread, but you specifically mentioned that VII did not contradict Trent, and that is [with respect to you of course ] rather spurious.

I should have clarified my statement. I was referring to teachings, not liturgical rites or practices.

 

[CoreyD]

I feel that this response is rather emotionally driven, and I want to apologize if I made you upset with anything I had said, I admit my previous response did seem rather forced, and if any ill intent was applied on it then it is my greatest of apologies, from the heart of a pacifist.

Feelings are attached to emotions, and since your feelings are involved here, would that not make your response emotionally driven?
I was stating facts. Sometimes facts emit emotional responses, and accusations against the poster.

You did read the news on the persons I named, didn't you?
Did you watch the documentaries, on them? If you did, you could confirm that what I said, are facts.
Cult leaders and their followings all claim that their leaders are "protected by the Holy Spirit".

Though, in regard to what you stated, they were the founder of their own movement, not a successor of St. Peter, and thus given Apostolic Succession; there are many great and fine differences between these folks and the Papal Office.

Once again, if we look at the facts, we won't see much difference, really.
One claims to be successor of St. Peter, and thus given Apostolic Succession... by God, but David Koresh, and Jim Jones claimed that their ministry was by God.

Jones claimed to be a return of Elijah the Prophet, the voice of God, a manifestation of Christ.
Koresh claimed his instructions were from God, and wanted to be God's tool and set up the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem.

The following of the one in the "Papal Office", says, "Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father - not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth."

Jim Jones thought he was God's earthly vessel, and his following agreed.

There are no differences in their exercise of "authority".
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns organised by popes and Christian western powers to take Jerusalem and the Holy Land back from Muslim control and then defend those gains.

This thread is not the place to get into all of this though.
As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding", and it would take us off topic, it I were to give you a taste of the pudding.

The fact remains that anyone can claim anything.
The evidence for, or against such claims is available for all to see.