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

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Baptis is one's outward expression of their faith.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My feeling is that the people who hate the Catholic church would rather separate their faith from Catholicism than agree with anything they have to say. It becomes a religion in and of itself to shout down anything that might agree with Catholics and then dare to agree with one Catholic doctrine.

Sort of, yes. Catholics are Trinitarian so they are suspicious of the Trinity. Catholics baptize this way so they want to baptize the other way. Catholics this so they want the other. Not all Protestants by any means but all too common.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not only the word "bury". There is Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch:

“So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Ac 8:38 NKJV)

The fact that the custom then was to bury in a sepulchre rather than in earth makes no difference - it was still called burial, and the whole of Him was "immersed" in the sepulchre, bot sprinkled by air from the sepulchre.

No, it is not addressed in Romans 6, but it is in Acts.

The language used concerning baptism is not just Christ's burial; it is His life, His death, and His resurrection. So a hyper focus on Christ's burial would lead us to ignore the larger picture of baptism: union with Christ and our new life in and from Him.

One could make the argument that immersion is visually useful to depict a dying/burial/rising motif. But Scripture itself never tells says this. But we can speculate that the reason why immersion was the preferred (not mandatory) mode of baptism in the early centuries (and remains so in the Christian East) may, in part, relate to this.

What we can't say, however, is that immersion is mandatory. Scripture never teaches this. Scripture never teaches a mode of baptism, nor does it connect the mode of baptism to Christ's burial.

Further: pouring and sprinkling can also provide illustrative significance. When a body is buried dirt is sprinkled or poured on top.

Immersion-only baptism simply isn't a biblically defensible position. Scripture never makes that argument. Scripture never makes an argument for a mandatory mode of baptism; nor does Scripture connect the mode of baptism with (e.g.) Christ's burial. Rather, Scripture makes the argument that in Baptism a person is brought into Christ, united to Christ, clothed with Christ, and thus has partaken in Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection. It is a full, holistic, incorporation into Jesus Christ: Literally, we have become members of Christ's Corpus, His Body. By baptism we are in Christ, and Christ is in us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

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

Yes, per John 3:3-5.

Blessings

 

[RileyG]

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.

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

 

[Danthemailman]

Yes, per John 3:3-5.

Blessings

In John 4:10-14, Jesus mentions "living water" and connects it with receiving eternal life. Take note that in verse 13, Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, (plain ordinary H20) 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them (living water) will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” This goes beyond plain ordinary H20.

In John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" here is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If that sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

The word "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)

 

[Danthemailman]

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

In Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when he uses this phrase, he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).

*The context reveals that only the righteous (Noah and his family) were dry and therefore safe. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's day came in contract with the water and they all perished.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

Sacramentarians (those who fight against the Sacraments) have all kinds of ways to get away from the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21. For example they will ignore the explicit grammar of the text which calls Baptism the antitype of the flood/ark

ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα
the and us antitype now saves us baptism
and the antitype now saves us baptism

This follows immediately

τοῦτ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος
that is eight souls were saved through water

Thus "eight souls were saved through water, and the antitype now saves us, baptism"

Baptism now saves us, even as eight people were saved through the water (by the ark). Baptism therefore corresponds, fulfills, answers the waters through which the eight souls were saved in that baptism now saves us.

Many simply reject this plain reading of the text. Others, however, will claim the verse doesn't mean what it says by looking at the phrase,

οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου
not flesh removal dirt
not the removal of dirt from the skin

Claiming that water can't be what is referred to. This, of course is rebutted by the fact that water is already mentioned explicitly: the eight were saved through the water, and baptism corresponds to this, now saving us. Thus water cannot be rejected, it is explicitly right there in the text.

What Peter is saying is that the way baptism saves isn't as a ritual bath that removes dirt from the skin, but instead baptism saves us because:

ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
but conscience good appeal toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
But an appeal of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It is not our flesh washed clean of dirt that makes baptism baptism, it is that baptism has washed our conscience clean, we bear a good and a clean conscience in relation to God because of Christ's resurrection; that is what baptism accomplishes. It washes away our sin and our guilt, we have--on account of Christ's work--a new conscience, a new disposition, a new mind, a clean heart before and toward God. Who we are has been changed, transformed, by the power of Christ's resurrection. Who we are in relation to God has been transformed; we are no longer guilty and condemned.

The meaning of the text is crystal clear. However, many fight against the word because they prefer their human contrived answers over the clear word of God.

According to the Scriptures, baptism saves us. Not by removing dirt from our skin, but by changing us from the inside out--we are a new creation in Christ Jesus, having died with Christ, having been buried with Christ, and having been raised together with Christ to new life. Regeneration.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

The language used concerning baptism is not just Christ's burial; it is His life, His death, and His resurrection. So a hyper focus on Christ's burial would lead us to ignore the larger picture of baptism: union with Christ and our new life in and from Him.

One could make the argument that immersion is visually useful to depict a dying/burial/rising motif. But Scripture itself never tells says this. But we can speculate that the reason why immersion was the preferred (not mandatory) mode of baptism in the early centuries (and remains so in the Christian East) may, in part, relate to this.

What we can't say, however, is that immersion is mandatory. Scripture never teaches this. Scripture never teaches a mode of baptism, nor does it connect the mode of baptism to Christ's burial.

Further: pouring and sprinkling can also provide illustrative significance. When a body is buried dirt is sprinkled or poured on top.

Immersion-only baptism simply isn't a biblically defensible position. Scripture never makes that argument. Scripture never makes an argument for a mandatory mode of baptism; nor does Scripture connect the mode of baptism with (e.g.) Christ's burial. Rather, Scripture makes the argument that in Baptism a person is brought into Christ, united to Christ, clothed with Christ, and thus has partaken in Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection. It is a full, holistic, incorporation into Jesus Christ: Literally, we have become members of Christ's Corpus, His Body. By baptism we are in Christ, and Christ is in us.

-CryptoLutheran

Very good.

There is also the aspect of 'drowning' by being immersed in baptism. Then there is 'washing' by having water poured in baptism. Both are good allusions.

I have never seen a baptism by sprinkling. I know they exist. I've just never seen one. Most have been by pouring. Some by immersion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Very good.

There is also the aspect of 'drowning' by being immersed in baptism. Then there is 'washing' by having water poured in baptism. Both are good allusions.

I have never seen a baptism by sprinkling. I know they exist. I've just never seen one. Most have been by pouring. Some by immersion.

I've never witnessed sprinkling either. Pouring definitely, as pouring three times in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is the ordinary mode used in Lutheran churches.

The closest I've ever seen sprinkling used is when the pastor uses an aspergillium, when the holy waters from the baptismal font are sprinkled onto the congregation as a reminder of our baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've never witnessed sprinkling either. Pouring definitely, as pouring three times in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is the ordinary mode used in Lutheran churches.

The closest I've ever seen sprinkling used is when the pastor uses an aspergillium, when the holy waters from the baptismal font are sprinkled onto the congregation as a reminder of our baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly.

I did see a few immersion baptisms in a Catholic church with a huge baptistry a few years ago. I know they sometimes do that. If I wasn't already baptized I'd go for that. But the commonest I see is pouring just as you described. And sprinkling as a reminder only, almost intentionally distinct from the pouring used in baptism. Then there is the holy water font at the door to dip your fingers in to them make the sign of the cross as a reminder of baptism.

I did see a maybe dodgy Methodist baptism that looked like it was done with a wet washcloth once. I wonder to this day if that wasn't a bit too dodgy for validity. But that was a long time ago and maybe I am mis-remembering it.

 

[RileyG]

In Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when he uses this phrase, he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).

*The context reveals that only the righteous (Noah and his family) were dry and therefore safe. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's day came in contract with the water and they all perished.

I disagree. I don’t believe baptism is just symbolic.

Blessings

 

[RileyG]

Exactly.

I did see a few immersion baptisms in a Catholic church with a huge baptistry a few years ago. I know they sometimes do that. If I wasn't already baptized I'd go for that. But the commonest I see is pouring just as you described. And sprinkling as a reminder only, almost intentionally distinct from the pouring used in baptism. Then there is the holy water font at the door to dip your fingers in to them make the sign of the cross as a reminder of baptism.

I did see a maybe dodgy Methodist baptism that looked like it was done with a wet washcloth once. I wonder to this day if that wasn't a bit too dodgy for validity. But that was a long time ago and maybe I am mis-remembering it.

I’ve never seen sprinkling. Only pouring. I’ve seen adult converts being baptized at the Easter vigil and it was always at the Baptismal font.

 

[RileyG]

Sacramentarians (those who fight against the Sacraments) have all kinds of ways to get away from the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21. For example they will ignore the explicit grammar of the text which calls Baptism the antitype of the flood/ark

ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα
the and us antitype now saves us baptism
and the antitype now saves us baptism

This follows immediately

τοῦτ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος
that is eight souls were saved through water

Thus "eight souls were saved through water, and the antitype now saves us, baptism"

Baptism now saves us, even as eight people were saved through the water (by the ark). Baptism therefore corresponds, fulfills, answers the waters through which the eight souls were saved in that baptism now saves us.

Many simply reject this plain reading of the text. Others, however, will claim the verse doesn't mean what it says by looking at the phrase,

οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου
not flesh removal dirt
not the removal of dirt from the skin

Claiming that water can't be what is referred to. This, of course is rebutted by the fact that water is already mentioned explicitly: the eight were saved through the water, and baptism corresponds to this, now saving us. Thus water cannot be rejected, it is explicitly right there in the text.

What Peter is saying is that the way baptism saves isn't as a ritual bath that removes dirt from the skin, but instead baptism saves us because:

ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
but conscience good appeal toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
But an appeal of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It is not our flesh washed clean of dirt that makes baptism baptism, it is that baptism has washed our conscience clean, we bear a good and a clean conscience in relation to God because of Christ's resurrection; that is what baptism accomplishes. It washes away our sin and our guilt, we have--on account of Christ's work--a new conscience, a new disposition, a new mind, a clean heart before and toward God. Who we are has been changed, transformed, by the power of Christ's resurrection. Who we are in relation to God has been transformed; we are no longer guilty and condemned.

The meaning of the text is crystal clear. However, many fight against the word because they prefer their human contrived answers over the clear word of God.

According to the Scriptures, baptism saves us. Not by removing dirt from our skin, but by changing us from the inside out--we are a new creation in Christ Jesus, having died with Christ, having been buried with Christ, and having been raised together with Christ to new life. Regeneration.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for your lovely post!

Your contributions are greatly appreciated!

God bless you

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Sacramentarians (those who fight against the Sacraments) have all kinds of ways to get away from the plain meaning of 1 Peter 3:21. For example they will ignore the explicit grammar of the text which calls Baptism the antitype of the flood/ark

ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα
the and us antitype now saves us baptism
and the antitype now saves us baptism

This follows immediately

τοῦτ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος
that is eight souls were saved through water

Thus "eight souls were saved through water, and the antitype now saves us, baptism"

Baptism now saves us, even as eight people were saved through the water (by the ark). Baptism therefore corresponds, fulfills, answers the waters through which the eight souls were saved in that baptism now saves us.

Many simply reject this plain reading of the text. Others, however, will claim the verse doesn't mean what it says by looking at the phrase,

οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου
not flesh removal dirt
not the removal of dirt from the skin

Claiming that water can't be what is referred to. This, of course is rebutted by the fact that water is already mentioned explicitly: the eight were saved through the water, and baptism corresponds to this, now saving us. Thus water cannot be rejected, it is explicitly right there in the text.

What Peter is saying is that the way baptism saves isn't as a ritual bath that removes dirt from the skin, but instead baptism saves us because:

ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
but conscience good appeal toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
But an appeal of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

It is not our flesh washed clean of dirt that makes baptism baptism, it is that baptism has washed our conscience clean, we bear a good and a clean conscience in relation to God because of Christ's resurrection; that is what baptism accomplishes. It washes away our sin and our guilt, we have--on account of Christ's work--a new conscience, a new disposition, a new mind, a clean heart before and toward God. Who we are has been changed, transformed, by the power of Christ's resurrection. Who we are in relation to God has been transformed; we are no longer guilty and condemned.

The meaning of the text is crystal clear. However, many fight against the word because they prefer their human contrived answers over the clear word of God.

According to the Scriptures, baptism saves us. Not by removing dirt from our skin, but by changing us from the inside out--we are a new creation in Christ Jesus, having died with Christ, having been buried with Christ, and having been raised together with Christ to new life. Regeneration.

-CryptoLutheran

This is probably the best and most concise explanation of I Peter 3 I have read. I have already copied and pasted it into my home mini database so it will probably show up somewhere in the future....of which I will attribute to you.

Peter writes dense material on either side of "baptism now saves".....which makes it hard to interpret. You clarified it. At least "baptism now saves" tops out with crystal clear meaning.

St. Peter ought to heed his own words about writing dense material....which he thought of Paul's writings...."His letters contain some things that are hard to understand" II Peter 3:16

Blessings of Jesus.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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?"

Jesus' baptism is not exactly like Christian baptism of the post Pentecostal era.

John the Baptist clarifies what Jesus' baptism is and what it means. John states, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world" just before his baptism. Jesus' baptism marks the point in time when He begins His three year public ministry as the SIN BEARER.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when he uses this phrase, he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household).

*The context reveals that only the righteous (Noah and his family) were dry and therefore safe. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's day came in contract with the water and they all perished.

I Peter 3 clearly states Noah and his family saved by water because Peter is applying typology to NT baptism (of which is water is one of the three basic elements of baptism). The ark is not mentioned in any baptismal text of the NT.
Hebrews 11:7 contextually has nothing to do with baptism nor with type/anti type. Noah in Hebrews 11 speaks of his believing God's word and building an ark out of obedience to save him and his family.

I would give creedence to your understanding of Hebrews 11 if contextually it mentioned baptism. Likewise, I also would give creedence to your understanding of Hebrews 11, if I Peter 3 contextually spoke about being obedient to God's word.

Furthermore, I find it very appropriate for Peter to mention just water and no ark and the writer of the Hebrews mentioning no water and just the ark. I find no need to reconcile these two verses as they are of different contexts.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Being baptized of water? No

Of the Holy Spirit? Yes

But baptism of the Holy Spirit is 100% a work of God and is not something that a person can do or does do for themselves but rather God baptizes a believer in the Holy Spirit upon conversion.

A better question would be can a person willingly refuse to be water baptized and still be saved? I would say no because water baptism is still an important part of being a Christian. It doesn't save a person but rather every saved person will want to at the very least be sprinkled by water in the name of the Godhead. Flat out refusal to be baptized and salvation just don't go hand in hand.

 

[Danthemailman]

The salvation of the Thief on the cross seems to answer that question when Yashuah told him he would be in Paradise with Him on that day.

Amen! A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate." Others may argue how do we know he was not already water baptized. I've heard it all. So, the thief on the cross may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit?

I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died on the cross before having the opportunity to be water baptized.

 

[Danthemailman]

Why not consider Jesus's statement in Mark 16:16, out of curiosity?

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.