How can baptism be required for salvation?

[ralliann]

There is absolutely no faith involved on the part of the infant, or any other individual who is baptized without their knowing consent.

Do you believe that if a person is baptized apart from any faith on their part, they are thus remitted of all previous sins?

A living faith is required. Which faith under the law was to circumcise ones sons. Before birth neither good nor bad is done, as a choice between Esau and Jacob before they were born.

 

[Eloy Craft]

How do you distinguish that baptism is mandatory to salvation?

Jesus taught ro enter the Kingdom of God one must be Baptized. And... You may not relate to this reason. I believe it is because I believe it always was. Development of doctrine requires that something always believed is still believed.

1)Those who are NOT baptized (water) cannot be saved... regardless of confession of faith in God/Jesus and agreement with Paul's Gospel of Grace
2)People can be saved without ever being baptised.
with an alternative option
3)People are in limbo of their salvation after confession/acceptance until they are wetted down. If someone accept Christ in a battle and a bullet hits them killing them instantly it voids their faith in God entirely.

Those are not either or's to me #1 is covered by Baptism of desire. Which means God knows you would've but circumstances prevented Baptism. Peter spoke as if the only question was not whether it is necessary that's obvious, but whether or not it could be denied them.

Now I believe that God can make exceptions to the rule but we cannot and should not teach/preach or consider that he will do such to give someone an option to reject the Gospel itself.

That's why I believe it's necessary.. I believe it's necessary for me. Since exceptions to God's commands are God's initiative not mine.

All the desires to have baptism mandatory flies in the face of logic of those saved without it and those saved and THEN baptized afterwards it. Most folks I have seen are baptized weeks even months after accepting Jesus, would you have those people NOT considered Christian until they take their watery dip using all the right words during it?
I don't see any Churches these days baptizing people immediately after accepting Christ at all, whic

God Isn't bound to ritual or words those are for us The ritual and words make visible invisible realities. God responds to the ritual and words though. We know God has acted on our behalf when we are Baptized. God knows visible signs help us believe.

don't see any Churches these days baptizing people immediately after accepting Christ at all, which means they consider them saved already.

I don't believe we can say we are saved. Too many aren't that believe they are. Too many are but don't know they are. Makes it useless. And. Wasn't always believed and believing it requires that what was always believed cant be

suggest those people who are on the side that thinks we must be baptized as part of salvation get baptized soon if not already as regardless of my thinking it is not needed getting it done will remove a stumbling block in your faith in being saved or not.

Good advice. Yours in Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why was the faith of the parents enough to circumcise infants?

Simply because faith was never mentioned in conjunction with circumcision. Curiously, circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, nor any of the other commandments which God gave to Israel.

It takes virtually no faith to perform a medical procedure, especially one which is cosmetic, at best. Thus, today we see all manner of tattoos on people, the vast majority of which are hardly faith-based, but usually hold specific significance to the owner.

Circumcision (of males only) was the means of visible distinguishing them from the surrounding Gentiles. It also served as a helpful means of identification of Jewish men in 1930's and 1940's Germany.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes and no. Baptism is a means of cleansing sin and experience freedom from the shame and guilt that obstructs Grace. The Holy Spirit is able to act on souls prepared by other means. Roman centurions seemed to live a rule of life that diciplined them in a way that enabled them to co-operate with Grace in a special way. There are a few centurions in the Gospels who demonstrated faith that impressed Jesus. I need to ask. Was Cornelius a Centurion? The Samaritan's experienced cleansing of sin by Jesus' Words. They didn't seem to have the expectations of worldly status that blinded the Jews. The Holy Spirit did something special with them ? The prerequisite condition is the removal of sin that isolates us from all including ourselves and compels us to hide from God and prefer the dark. The sin unto death obstructs the Spirit but sin that doesn't cause death isn't good but doesn't do what Adam's sin did. Its sin that is not the manner of Adam's sin. Paul taught about it.

Baptism is how life that exists at a higher level reaches down and lifts us up. But it is always entering a death. Jesus Was Baptized into His Divine life by dying to His perfect life on earth. He didn't need to die as we do. But even perfect life experiences suffering in preparation for a higher perfection God wants for us.
Recall when God said about Adam's life in Paradise. " It's not good that the man is alone. The absence of good is the definition of evil. Evil in Paradise.

Anyway, Baptism is the means God provides for us to remove sin and it's the way we need so we know with certainty that God has done what the rite signifies
If we received Him some other way we need a sign to be certain that it was Him that we experienced.

The problem with this view is the concept that water can wash sin away. Even in the Old Testament water was quite insufficient to cover sin. The blood of lambs, sheep, and bulls was required. In the New Testament only the blood of the Perfect Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is capable of cleansing the sinful soul. It is absurd to think that human effort is required by God when God has provided an infinite means for human forgiveness.

It reminds me of the (alleged) Treasury of the Merits of Jesus Christ and the Saints according to the Catholic Church. In theory they are infinite, as is the love of God in His provision of them. In practice, however, the Pope and His representatives are quite parsimonious in doling them out only to those whom they determine actually deserve them. Thus (in theory) there are untold millions of Catholics this moment suffering the pangs of Purgatory because The Treasury of Merits was forbidden to their use.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus taught ro enter the Kingdom of God one must be Baptized. And... You may not relate to this reason. I believe it is because I believe it always was. Development of doctrine requires that something always believed is still believed.

Those are not either or's to me #1 is covered by Baptism of desire. Which means God knows you would've but circumstances prevented Baptism. Peter spoke as if the only question was not whether it is necessary that's obvious, but whether or not it could be denied them.


That's why I believe it's necessary.. I believe it's necessary for me. Since exceptions to God's commands are God's initiative not mine.

God Isn't bound to ritual or words those are for us The ritual and words make visible invisible realities. God responds to the ritual and words though. We know God has acted on our behalf when we are Baptized. God knows visible signs help us believe.


I don't believe we can say we are saved. Too many aren't that believe they are. Too many are but don't know they are. Makes it useless. And. Wasn't always believed and believing it requires that what was always believed cant be


Good advice. Yours in Christ.

Wow! What a wonderfully circular argument. You believe this simply because you believe it. Most Catholics I know usually fall back on the argument that some Catholic doctrine is true because the Catholic Church teaches it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

A living faith is required. Which faith under the law was to circumcise ones sons. Before birth neither good nor bad is done, as a choice between Esau and Jacob before they were born.

Exactly. Apart from a living faith, any human effort is worse than worthless.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The problem with this view is the concept that water can wash sin away.

For some reason I imagined Jesus using His spit to wash away blindness, remember that ? Did Jesus Baptize that man?
The premise here that water washes away sin isn't what is taught. The Holy Spirit does the supernatural stuff

 

[Eloy Craft]

Wow! What a wonderfully circular argument. You believe this simply because you believe it. Most Catholics I know usually fall back on the argument that some Catholic doctrine is true because the Catholic Church teaches it.

No. I didn't describe that well.
The Baptismal rite is Divine Tradition. The Holy Spirit started it with John. Jesus received John's Baptism and united water and fire in Himself and made them one Baptism.
I believe it because I believe it was believed since the beginning.
I can't put a Divine Tradition aside and put a human one before it.

 

[disciple Clint]

Are you suggesting Jesus' death (and subsequent burial and resurrection) are not relevant to, or necessary for our salvation?

I do not see anywhere that I said anything even close to that, is my post not clear?

 

[Valletta]

Simply because faith was never mentioned in conjunction with circumcision. Curiously, circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, nor any of the other commandments which God gave to Israel.

It takes virtually no faith to perform a medical procedure, especially one which is cosmetic, at best. Thus, today we see all manner of tattoos on people, the vast majority of which are hardly faith-based, but usually hold specific significance to the owner.

Circumcision (of males only) was the means of visible distinguishing them from the surrounding Gentiles. It also served as a helpful means of identification of Jewish men in 1930's and 1940's Germany.

I was just reading a book by St. Augustine yesterday. St. Augustine put it this way:

"Had I been a Jew in the time of that ancient people, when there was nothing better that I could be, I would undoubtedly have received circumcision. That seal of the righteousness which is by faith was of so great importance in that dispensation before it was abrogated by the Lord's coming, that the angel would have strangled the infant-child of Moses, had not the child's mother, seizing a stone, circumcised the child, and by this sacrament averted impending death. This sacrament also arrested the waters of the Jordan, and made them flow back towards their source. This sacrament the Lord Himself received in infancy, although He abrogated it when He was crucified. For these signs of spiritual blessings were not condemned, but gave place to others which were more suitable to the later dispensation. For as circumcision was abolished by the first coming of the Lord, so baptism shall be abolished by His second coming. For as now, since the liberty of faith has come, and the yoke of bondage has been removed, no Christian receives circumcision in the flesh; so then, when the just are reigning with the Lord, and the wicked have been condemned, no one shall be baptized, but the reality which both ordinances prefigure — namely, circumcision of the heart and cleansing of the conscience— shall be eternally abiding."
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 23 (St. Augustine)

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was just reading a book by St. Augustine yesterday. St. Augustine put it this way:

"Had I been a Jew in the time of that ancient people, when there was nothing better that I could be, I would undoubtedly have received circumcision. That seal of the righteousness which is by faith was of so great importance in that dispensation before it was abrogated by the Lord's coming, that the angel would have strangled the infant-child of Moses, had not the child's mother, seizing a stone, circumcised the child, and by this sacrament averted impending death. This sacrament also arrested the waters of the Jordan, and made them flow back towards their source. This sacrament the Lord Himself received in infancy, although He abrogated it when He was crucified. For these signs of spiritual blessings were not condemned, but gave place to others which were more suitable to the later dispensation. For as circumcision was abolished by the first coming of the Lord, so baptism shall be abolished by His second coming. For as now, since the liberty of faith has come, and the yoke of bondage has been removed, no Christian receives circumcision in the flesh; so then, when the just are reigning with the Lord, and the wicked have been condemned, no one shall be baptized, but the reality which both ordinances prefigure — namely, circumcision of the heart and cleansing of the conscience— shall be eternally abiding."
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 23 (St. Augustine)

St. Augustine would have received circumcision, as a Jewish male. However, if he had been born female she certainly would not have been circumcised. If the analogy is carried through, then females should not be baptized.

I always find it curious the the writings of the ECFs are treated as mines from which to extract support for various doctrines while rejecting much of their other writings. The Catholic Church has firmly rejected Augustine's monergism, even though he wrote far, far more about it than this passage on circumcision.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No. I didn't describe that well.
The Baptismal rite is Divine Tradition. The Holy Spirit started it with John. Jesus received John's Baptism and united water and fire in Himself and made them one Baptism.
I believe it because I believe it was believed since the beginning.
I can't put a Divine Tradition aside and put a human one before it.

You are partially correct. The Catholic baptismal rite is Catholic Tradition. The fact that the Catholic Church has also recognized virtually all other baptismal rites, including those of radical Protestantism, does not make them actually and truly identical with the Catholic baptismal rite.

You are still displaying a marvelously circular argument. You believe this because you believe this. You do not rely on objective facts for your belief, but believe it simply because you believe it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For some reason I imagined Jesus using His spit to wash away blindness, remember that ? Did Jesus Baptize that man?
The premise here that water washes away sin isn't what is taught. The Holy Spirit does the supernatural stuff

Jesus did not spit in the eyes of the blind man. He used dirt transformed into mud to apply a poultice to the man's eyes. He could have just as simply commanded the blindness to go away, as he did in other circumstances or He could have simply said, "Your sins are forgiven." as He did with the paralytic man who was lowered through the roof.

One takeaway from the examples of healing is that Jesus did not limit Himself to any particular mode. Thus, it is not a denial of godly faith to go to a doctor when one is sick and in need of healing. God can, and does, use medical science to heal people.

In the case of the forgiveness of sins, God is the One who forgives sin and the means is through the blood of Jesus Christ - not water, not a religious bureaucracy, not pilgrimages, and not saints.

 

[BNR32FAN]

At what point was the thief on the cross baptized? and yet Jesus saved him.

We don’t know that the thief wasn’t baptized either. I’m not saying baptism is required for salvation just pointing out that the thief on the cross isn’t evidence supporting either side of this debate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are partially correct. The Catholic baptismal rite is Catholic Tradition. The fact that the Catholic Church has also recognized virtually all other baptismal rites, including those of radical Protestantism, does not make them actually and truly identical with the Catholic baptismal rite.

You are still displaying a marvelously circular argument. You believe this because you believe this. You do not rely on objective facts for your belief, but believe it simply because you believe it.

Actually if I’m not mistaken the Catholic Church only recognizes Trinitarian baptisms if it’s not a Trinitarian baptism they don’t consider it a valid baptism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It was fairly well universal until around 1500 or so. And no one ever argued over the meaning of anything in the bible.

Well that’s not exactly accurate. You had Pelagianism, Nestrianism, Doecitism, and the biggest of all Arianism which were all disputes over the meaning of scripture. All of these took place within the first 3 centuries of the church.

Edit: Sorry Pelagianism was 4th-5th century.

 

[disciple Clint]

We don’t know that the thief wasn’t baptized either. I’m not saying baptism is required for salvation just pointing out that the thief on the cross isn’t evidence supporting either side of this debate.

So is it going to be your assertion that all of the people that Jesus gave absolution to were baptized at some unknown and unverifiable time prior to that? I do not know of anything that would support that view, do you?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually if I’m not mistaken the Catholic Church only recognizes Trinitarian baptisms if it’s not a Trinitarian baptism they don’t consider it a valid baptism.

You are correct. This is somewhat perplexing to myself in light of the fact that many trinitarian baptisms are expressly believed to be non-sacramental and non-salvific. This flies fully in the face of Catholic doctrine. However, even the Orthodox baptismal rite is radically different from Catholic beliefs in that the Orthodox fully reject the concept of inherited sin from Adam.

 

[DerSchweik]

I do not see anywhere that I said anything even close to that, is my post not clear?

Please forgive me if I misunderstood.

@HTacianas made what I believe were several respectable points:

Christianity has taught from the beginning that baptism is necessary. The quotes you provided are synecdoches. The writers need not repeat every word of the gospel in every single line.

He then asked this question which I thought too was very good:

But perhaps a better question would be "why are you discouraging people from being baptized"? You have truncated the Great Commission.

To which you responded:

At what point was the thief on the cross baptized? and yet Jesus saved him.

Do you see why I asked what I did? He (correctly, I believe) pointed out how Christianity has taught from the beginning the necessity of baptism; and asked why you were discouraging people from being baptized.

You responded with the thief on the cross.

Invariably, it seems, whenever the topic of baptism comes up, someone raises the example of the thief on the cross, always noting "the thief was saved, but he wasn't baptized..." as if to say his example is somehow an example for us today why baptism isn't necessary. It has always stymied me why people bring him up to make this particular point.

No, you did not say that Jesus' death (and subsequent burial and resurrection) are unnecessary to salvation.

And understand, I do believe the thief was saved. However, raising his example, as many seem so keen to, raises several other key points:

• Jesus' command that we be baptized (c.f. Mk 16:16, Mt 28:18-20) was given AFTER His death, AFTER His burial, and AFTER His resurrection.
  
• Christian baptism is explicitly linked to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection as the point at which we die, are buried, and subsequently "raised" with Him (c.f. Rom 6:1ff), and clothe ourselves with Him (Gal 3:27), etc. That said,
  
• At the time of His interaction with the thief, Jesus was still alive.

I mean, is it not logical to conclude that if thief is an example to us today of how to be saved, then Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection - and Christian baptism - are truly unnecessary? Do you see my point, and why I asked what I did?

 

[BNR32FAN]

So is it going to be your assertion that all of the people that Jesus gave absolution to were baptized at some unknown and unverifiable time prior to that? I do not know of anything that would support that view, do you?

No, hence my statements “baptism is not required for salvation” and “the thief on the cross does not give any evidence supporting either side of the debate”. We can’t say for certain that the thief was baptized nor can we say that he wasn’t so it can’t be used as evidence to support the necessity of baptism nor can it be used as evidence against the necessity of baptism.