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

[AveChristusRex]

There is actually no scripture saying Peter is the rock or foundation on which the church is built.

I said this in the message you responded to previously: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). You had previously responded saying that Christ is the foundation, and I had shown evidences for that not being mutually exclusive to the Church being built on St. Peter; I think you ignored that message, and thats ok!

But, again, with respect of course, I don't think you're listening to the evidences I showed previously, and thats also ok! But I did show that, in the eyes of philologists, the Church, the fathers, etc., the Church is built on St. Peter; I feel as if I am repeating the same point, so im sure ViaCrucis or Ain't Zwinglian can do a much better job at explaining than I can.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Some things are incontrovertible, for example, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Passion and Resurrection of Christ our True God, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so on.

Very true, St. Pius V infallibly declared: “All other churches aforesaid [with the exception of those of another rite of which their liturgy is older than 200 years old] are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.” Note, again, that all historical Rites were preserved in Quo Primum. Only new Western attempts at different Missals were abolished. Even Cardinal Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI)'s own assessment stated the post-VII Missal is illicit: "The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis — the handing-on of tradition" (Organic Development of the Liturgy).

It is ignored by almost all Catholics. A few errant bishops and priests and lay people think it's great but for the rest of us.... It's a dead letter that has been 'not received' by the vast majority of faithful Catholics in an exercise of the Sensus fidelium. Pope Francis effectively recognized this by making it an 'optional' teaching, meaning it's a worthless piece of paper. The problem is that Fiducia supplicans has been the excuse for even more sin, making it look like the Church, and even God, approved of that which could never be approved.

It should be a concern to all Catholics, independant or not, that the material occupier of St. Peter's Basilica has published such an encyclical; and the unfortunance that numerous post-VII occupiers of St. Peter's Basilica have made similar retractions of Catholic doctrine (i.e. John Paul II's apology to the Academy of Sciences on Heliocentrism and his subsequent retraction of Geocentrism) shows great evidence of a grave issue within the Church that I don't think any Catholic could deny.

 

[Wansvic]

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

Read again the first message Peter gave on the topic and how the listeners responded. Those who believe in Jesus express faith in Him through obedience. Once informed, individuals make a conscious decision to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. This is not a manmade tradition but rather what is revealed in the word of God. (Acts 2:4-42)

 

[Yarddog]

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

Yes.

 

[Wansvic]

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

Again, the sum of God's word reveals what is true. Yes, all detailed accounts of water baptisms took place in the 1st century. However, the Bible establishes the command was not limited to that time period. But rather the promise was for all that were afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Furthermore, Jesus confirmed the gospel message, that includes the need for baptism, was to go into all the world and then the end would come. (Mark 16:15-16, Matt 24:14, Luke 24:47) So to, the biblical record reveals sprinkling played no part in administering water baptism.

 

[Wansvic]

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.

I never said there are no promises attached to baptism. There are; sins are remitted. (Luke 3:3, Mark 1:1-5, Acts 2:38, 22:16) The point is individuals regardless of age who are baptized without first having put their faith in Jesus and repented exit the waters wet.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Again, the sum of God's word reveals what is true. Yes, all detailed accounts of water baptisms took place in the 1st century. However, the Bible establishes the command was not limited to that time period. But rather the promise was for all that were afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

"For you and your children, and to all who are far off"

Furthermore, Jesus confirmed the gospel message, that includes the need for baptism, was to go into all the world and then the end would come. (Mark 16:15-16, Matt 24:14, Luke 24:47) So to, the biblical record reveals sprinkling played no part in administering water baptism.

You continue to put yourself and your man made tradition ahead of God's word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I never said there are no promises attached to baptism. There are; sins are remitted. (Luke 3:3, Mark 1:1-5, Acts 2:38, 22:16) The point is individuals regardless of age who are baptized without first having put their faith in Jesus and repented exit the waters wet.

I am done with this conversation.

 

[Wansvic]

I am done with this conversation.

Ok. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Very true, St. Pius V infallibly declared: “All other churches aforesaid [with the exception of those of another rite of which their liturgy is older than 200 years old] are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.” Note, again, that all historical Rites were preserved in Quo Primum. Only new Western attempts at different Missals were abolished. Even Cardinal Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI)'s own assessment stated the post-VII Missal is illicit: "The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis — the handing-on of tradition" (Organic Development of the Liturgy).

It should be a concern to all Catholics, independant or not, that the material occupier of St. Peter's Basilica has published such an encyclical; and the unfortunance that numerous post-VII occupiers of St. Peter's Basilica have made similar retractions of Catholic doctrine (i.e. John Paul II's apology to the Academy of Sciences on Heliocentrism and his subsequent retraction of Geocentrism) shows great evidence of a grave issue within the Church that I don't think any Catholic could deny.

Geocentrism? Really?

 

[AveChristusRex]

Geocentrism? Really?

Just one of the examples I thought id share, if you were saying that Geocentrism is outlandish, thats ok! But I would suggest to see my explination of Geocentrism in Church doctrine when you can: Catholicism: Is Geocentrism 'de fide' (an Obligatory Article of Faith)? Yes and No.

 

[Guojing]

Ok. Thank you for the discussion.

People like to treat this forum like an airport, and like to announce their departure.

 

[The Liturgist]

People like to treat this forum like an airport, and like to announce their departure.

“At this time, we’d like to invite our BusinessFirst passengers and Gold and Silver Medallion SkyMiles members to board the aircraft.”

 

[rturner76]

OT Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases

NT

Matthew 19:26​

But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

[rturner76]

Chapter and verse please.

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

 

[rturner76]

I think we are made part of the flock once we are baptized. Someone who is facing death without the option of baptism can only humbly ask God that they be saved, then it is up to God's divine nature to decide.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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

I will recopy Post #191

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.

 

[Danthemailman]

There is n way arund it

Question: Is there saving grace without baptism?

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (and baptism? No. Simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith (and baptism? No. Simply faith) into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, (and baptism? No. Simply faith) and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

 

[rturner76]

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (and baptism? No. Simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith (and baptism? No. Simply faith) into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, (and baptism? No. Simply faith) and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

That begs the question, what is the best outward expression of that faith?

In Romans 6:4, Paul explains Christ' heart for baptism: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Do you still contend that baptism has no use? Is that what you were saying? If so, I would agree in that one can give one's heart to Christ without water baptism if one is not available. If it is however available, do you not think that some should be baptized as Jesus was when God said he was pleased in Christ's Baptism and split the heavens to show it? Is it irrelevant to seek to please God and enter his fraternity through water baptism. Just one more quick passage on what Jesus thinks about the situation.

Jesus then appeared, arriving at the Jordan River from Galilee. He wanted John to baptize him. John objected, “I’m the one who needs to be baptized, not you!” But Jesus insisted. “Do it. God’s work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism.” So John did it. The moment Jesus came up out of the baptismal waters, the skies opened up and he saw God’s Spirit—it looked like a dove—descending and landing on him. And along with the Spirit, a voice: “This is my Son, chosen and marked by my love, delight of my life.”
https://www.bible.com/bible/97/MAT.3.13-17.MSG
In this passage, does Christ say that baptism is unnecessary or does he talk about the importance of it? Did God say he was well pleased or did he say "you really didn't need to do that?"

 

[Danthemailman]

That begs the question, what is the best outward expression of that faith?

In Romans 6:4, Paul explains Christ' heart for baptism: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Do you still contend that baptism has no use? Is that what you were saying? If so, I would agree in that one can give one's heart to Christ without water baptism if one is not available. If it is however available, do you not think that some should be baptized as Jesus was when God said he was pleased in Christ's Baptism and split the heavens to show it? Is it irrelevant to seek to please God and enter his fraternity through water baptism. Just one more quick passage on what Jesus thinks about the situation.

Jesus then appeared, arriving at the Jordan River from Galilee. He wanted John to baptize him. John objected, “I’m the one who needs to be baptized, not you!” But Jesus insisted. “Do it. God’s work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism.” So John did it. The moment Jesus came up out of the baptismal waters, the skies opened up and he saw God’s Spirit—it looked like a dove—descending and landing on him. And along with the Spirit, a voice: “This is my Son, chosen and marked by my love, delight of my life.”
Matthew 3:13-17 Jesus then appeared, arriving at the Jordan River from Galilee. He wanted John to baptize him. John objected, “I’m the one who needs to be baptized, not you!” But Jesus insisted. “Do it. God’s work, p | The Message (MSG) | Download The Bible App Now
In this passage, does Christ say that baptism is unnecessary or does he talk about the importance of it? Did God say he was well pleased or did he say "you really didn't need to do that?"

In regard to Romans 6:3-4, as Greek scholar AT Robertson explains - Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See on "Galatians 3:27" where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Into his death (ei ton qanaton autou). So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance. The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forward to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.

Romans 6 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly emphasized that faith (not baptism) is the instrumental cause of salvation/justification. (Romans 1:16, 3:22-30; 4:4-6, 13; 5:1) That is when the old man was put to death and united in the likeness of His death, which water baptism symbolizes and pictures. Righteousness is "imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification." (Romans 4:24,25)

Since believers receive the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (justification) and that through faith, believers must be spiritually united to Him (delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established before, namely that justification is by faith, not baptism. *Hermeneutics.

Paul clearly teaches that what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ) actually occurs "through faith." Christians are "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and resurrection is brought about "through faith" - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and out of the water.