Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[Macca]

Philo,

I'm glad to hear that you're doing well and still in contact with Aaron11.

I have a question that might help to clear things up. I believe that we may have been trying make the same point but using the same words with different definitions.

When you say that God has given grace, do you mean that God has offered grace?

I know you didn't ask me, but, God does not offer grace. If it was offered, and as many as do refused it they would be done away with as they were in the O.T.
Grace is poured out on us. Rom. 12:3 "through the grace given to me......"
Macca.

 

[Philo]

Philo,

I'm glad to hear that you're doing well and still in contact with Aaron11.

I have a question that might help to clear things up. I believe that we may have been trying make the same point but using the same words with different definitions.

When you say that God has given grace, do you mean that God has offered grace?

Well, as Macca said, I think God has given the grace. But I think He has given us the right to refuse it. Think of it as the Garden of Eden... Adam and Eve were created brand new creatures. The Bible uses the same language to refer to the saved. They chose to serve themselves, and had to be cast out.

Jesus said the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I don't think He meant talking trash about the Holy Spirit (though surely that's blasphemous as well). I think the worst blasphemy one could level against the Holy Spirit is to call Him a liar. In other words, after being confronted with the Gospel, the message the Holy Spirit was sent to proclaim, one must believe. If one does not, he is calling the Holy Spirit a liar.

A passage I found while searching for another verse, but a goodie in context of this discussion:

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-8)"

So, yes, I suppose in a sense grace is offered for our salvation just as sure as air is offered for our breathing. If one refuses grace, or one refuses air, the result is essentially the same.

Now as this relates to baptism... Yes, it's necessary. Absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably necessary to be saved. If you are not baptized into Christ, you aren't in Christ. I just don't believe that the specific act of water baptism has all that much to do with baptism. If someone can be immersed bodily in water and remain unbaptized (that is, remain alive to themselves and dead to Christ), I think this alone is evidence that it is more a matter of the heart than of the water.

I love 2 Peter 2:18-22. It's a favorite prooftext for those who believe in baptismal regeneration. Except, there is an interesting flaw in their reasoning: The water didn't save Noah. The boat did. Noah's trust in God was his salvation. It wasn't his building the boat that saved him. How rediculous would building a boat be to someone who had never seen a body of water? God chose to save Noah before Noah built the boat. The boat was just a natural progression of faith. In other words, Noah wasn't saved because he built the boat. He was built the boat because he was saved.

Interestingly enough, baptism is described as "an answer of a good conscience toward God." I think that is a very apt way to describe it. And I'm talking water baptism, here. I think it's a beatiful metaphor, and very much worth it in a spiritual sense. But, just like Noah, we build the boat because we're saved, and not vice-versa, if you get my drift.

Aggie's so nice,

Philo

 

[suzie]

Well, Aggie not only are you misconstruing the intent of Scripture,but also my posting as well. At least you are consistent.

 

[aggie03]

Well, Aggie not only are you misconstruing the intent of Scripture,but also my posting as well. At least you are consistent.

If you wouldn't mind then showing me where and when I've misconstrued or taken out of context Scriptures, I would be more than happy to correct my misunderstanding. This does not mean that I will lay down and just accept whatever you say

I believe that I was also very polite when I responded to your comments toward Western Kentucky. I asked that should any of us become angered by something that we read on here that we leave until we are capable of responding in a manner befiting those who are discussing the word of God. As I could see no benefit from the things that you had said to Western Kentucky, I thought that this may have been the case. I was also, I believe, very polite in saying that I may have misunderstood your "tone of voice" in the post.

If I have misunderstood you, I am sincerely sorry. If this is not true, I would humbly ask that you please follow the advice that I have offered, as belittling or ad hominem attacks acheive little in our study of God's word.

 

[western kentucky]

Wow western you really take things and lift them right out of context. However, I dont read the Scriptures in the same light. It reads to me that salvation is a gift, one that I cant earn, that I dont deserve and I need to do nothing more than accept and believe. You would be well to know the Judiazers, you have much in common

Suzie,

I agree that salvation is a gift, one that we can't earn, and one that we don't deserve.... But does this concept negate the necessity of baptism? How do you decide from the scriptures that "faith" is not a work, and that "baptism" is a work?

From my perspective, the idea of "faith alone" does not agree with the rest of the New Testament. "Faith alone" disagrees with the common passages that have been used throughout this discussion (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc...), and specifically with the conversions mentioned in the book of Acts. Throughout the book of Acts, we can see that there is a need for baptism:

Chapter 2: The Jews accepted Jesus and were cut to the heart, but this was not enough. They asked Peter what they should do, and Peter responded by saying, "Repent and each one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins."

Chapter 8: We see the example of Philip and the Eunuch. Philip taught him Jesus, and with a sense of urgency, the Eunuch asked to be baptized.

Chapter 10: In this chapter, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles. First the Holy Spirit fell upon them, then they were ordered to be baptized.

Chapter 16: At the end of the chapter, we see the example of the Phillipian Jailer. After washing the wounds of Paul and Silas, he and his household were immediately baptized.

Chapter 22: We read about the conversion of Saul (Paul). Ananias told Paul, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

 

[Philo]

I think the only thing we really disagree with in this thread is the definition of full-immersion water baptism as the only valid baptism. I think it would be foolish to argue, as I've said before, that baptism isn't necessary. The bible seems to indicate to me, however, that the importance of baptism lies in a change of heart and not a change in exterior moistness.

<3,

Philo

 

[aggie03]

Well, baptism is not the only thing that I believe is necessary for one to be saved. I agree with you completely that if one does not believe, then getting dunked in water in no way that I can find in the Scriptures saves them.

However, this in no way necessitates that baptism is not necessary, nor does it argue against the idea that it is the point at which one is added to the church (Acts 2:41).

 

[Philo]

Well, baptism is not the only thing that I believe is necessary for one to be saved. I agree with you completely that if one does not believe, then getting dunked in water in no way that I can find in the Scriptures saves them.

However, this in no way necessitates that baptism is not necessary, nor does it argue against the idea that it is the point at which one is added to the church (Acts 2:41).

Yup. I agree with you 100%

I think all we disagree on is the manner in which someone may be baptized into Christ. If I'm not mistaken, you are an advocate of full-immersion water baptism. Now, don't get me wrong. I am too. But I think that there are other ways that one might be baptized into Christ, other than just by full-immersion water baptism. This is not to say that I don't advocate baptism-by-immersion. Quite the opposite, actually. I believe that it is a very good ritual, if taken in its proper historical and cultural context. We have to remember that in the area the 1st Century church was first established, baptism as a rite outside of Christianity was already firmly established. Everyone understood what it meant. John, and later Christ, put the already-existing rite of baptism into a new context, making it symbolize repentence and rebirth, respectively. I think to a certain extent, it's understandable that people today might have a hard time understanding the necessity of baptism-by-immersion, simply because it is outside our cultural paradigm. Do you think the Eunuch would have been so eager to be baptized if there weren't already an established tradition (especially among jews and converts to judaism) that he understood and connected to the Gospel message? Of course this is a rhetorical question, but one worth considering anyway.

I like swimming!,

Philo

 

[ischus]

excellent post, Philo !

(btw, have you read Beasley-Murray?)

 

[Philo]

excellent post, Philo !

(btw, have you read Beasley-Murray?)

Thanks.

And, no, never have.

<3,

Philo

 

[ischus]

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1962.

It is an old classic, but it is one of the most thorough and outstanding works on baptism that I have ever read. Let me know if you want some additional info and I will PM you.

God Bless,

ischus

 

[aggie03]

Yup. I agree with you 100%

So let's go over what we agree on. You believe that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary in order that one might be saved. You believe that this can only be done with effect to salvation as long as some other conditions have already been met - one, for example, being belief. You also believe that the method for this baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins is to be by immersion.

Is all this right?

But I think that there are other ways that one might be baptized into Christ, other than just by full-immersion water baptism.

Would you mind explaining this to me? And how it fits together with your other beliefs?

This is not to say that I don't advocate baptism-by-immersion. Quite the opposite, actually. I believe that it is a very good ritual, if taken in its proper historical and cultural context.

It sounds like we don't really agree

We have to remember that in the area the 1st Century church was first established, baptism as a rite outside of Christianity was already firmly established. Everyone understood what it meant. John, and later Christ, put the already-existing rite of baptism into a new context, making it symbolize repentence and rebirth, respectively.

The baptism of John and the baptism that we are called into are completely different. While the action of being baptized had already occurred previously to the establishment of the church, the reasons were completely different and someone with this previous understanding would have to learn the new.

I think to a certain extent, it's understandable that people today might have a hard time understanding the necessity of baptism-by-immersion, simply because it is outside our cultural paradigm.

Since when does cultural effect what God has said is necessary to be saved? I'm not being facetious or beligerant - I really am curious as to what you think on this.

Do you think the Eunuch would have been so eager to be baptized if there weren't already an established tradition (especially among jews and converts to judaism) that he understood and connected to the Gospel message?

Yes, because the baptism that the Eunuch underwent was for a completely different reason than that of those who were converted to Judaism. The baptism that you're refering to was not mandatory, and was nothing more than a ritual that could or could not be performed - and it was commanded no where to my knowledge in the Scriptures. The Eunuch was baptized because it was part of the message that was preached when Philip preached Jesus. If I were the Eunuch and I heard that I needed to the baptized in the name Jesus for the remission of my sins, and then I saw water, you better believe that I would have reacted in the exact same way

I like swimming!

I like rafting!

 

[Aaron11]

So you never have to do anything to receive a gift?

Not a free gift.

 

[Aaron11]

SF BAY,

I am glad that you have joined the discussion....

There are a few key things that a person must consider when using reference to the thief on the cross:

1. The thief on the cross lived and died under the old law.
2. The Old Law Ended after the death of Christ. (Hebrews 9:16)
3. A New Law began when Christ resurrected from the dead. (Hebrews 7:12)
4. Only under the new law is one to be baptized into Christ. (Acts 19:1-7)

*Point - The thief on the cross is not a valid reference when discussing the necessity of baptism.



Can you find a verse in the bible to support your view?

I'd just rather not make a broad statement that would decide billions of souls destiny for eternity, when I really don't know how God will judge each and every person that has lived and died.

I know many people hate "what if" situations, but if we are going to make a statement that covers all people such as: "Baptism is absolutely necessary for anyone to be saved nowadays.", we have to realize the huge width that statement covers.

For instance:

- A 15 year old girl who dies in a carwreck, who loved Jesus but never heard that Christ wanted her to be baptized.

- A man who lived and died in Rwanda and lived by the principles of the gospel (faith, hope, love) without ever hearing the name Jesus.

- A POW that hears the gospel and decides he loves Jesus but has no means to be baptized.

OR... the most famous "what if" when it comes to baptism being necessary or not...

- A young woman who hears the gospel, decides to give her life to Christ and is on her way to the baptistry when she dies.

Before you jump ahead, I know all of this is "unlikely" for one individual. However, I imagine God will see many cases like this on judgement day. So, are you ready to say that all of these people are going to hell? I'm not. I have my guesses as to how God would judge these people, but my guess is as good as yours or any other's. If baptism is necessary for all, then these people would necessarily be going to hell. I am fine with saying that Christ would like everyone to be baptized, but that is not what we are talking about.

I would just like people to think about the implications of their broad statements.

Peace in the Middle East,

Aaron

 

[Aaron11]

So let's go over what we agree on. You believe that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary in order that one might be saved. You believe that this can only be done with effect to salvation as long as some other conditions have already been met - one, for example, being belief. You also believe that the method for this baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins is to be by immersion.

Is all this right?


Would you mind explaining this to me? And how it fits together with your other beliefs?


It sounds like we don't really agree


The baptism of John and the baptism that we are called into are completely different. While the action of being baptized had already occurred previously to the establishment of the church, the reasons were completely different and someone with this previous understanding would have to learn the new.


Since when does cultural effect what God has said is necessary to be saved? I'm not being facetious or beligerant - I really am curious as to what you think on this.


Yes, because the baptism that the Eunuch underwent was for a completely different reason than that of those who were converted to Judaism. The baptism that you're refering to was not mandatory, and was nothing more than a ritual that could or could not be performed - and it was commanded no where to my knowledge in the Scriptures. The Eunuch was baptized because it was part of the message that was preached when Philip preached Jesus. If I were the Eunuch and I heard that I needed to the baptized in the name Jesus for the remission of my sins, and then I saw water, you better believe that I would have reacted in the exact same way


I like rafting!

The word baptism is basically being used in two different senses by you two, at least from what I can see. It seems that aggie03 is talking about a physical dunking and Philo is talking about a spiritual dunking. As for what Christ cares about, I would guess the spiritual dunking.

Rain in Spain,

Aaron

 

[aggie03]

Not a free gift.

What about receive it?

 

[Aaron11]

What about receive it?

Yeah, I guess in order to recieve a gift you have to recieve it. Seems a little redundant.

 

[Aaron11]

The baptism of John and the baptism that we are called into are completely different. While the action of being baptized had already occurred previously to the establishment of the church, the reasons were completely different and someone with this previous understanding would have to learn the new.

Philo wasn't saying that everyone knew what baptism was because of John. He was saying that in the Israelite culture, even before John, baptism was a well known ritual that was followed when Gentiles were born into the Israelite nation. The Israelite people knew what baptism was because it was used in their culture. That was his point, I do believe.

Interestingly enough, that gives us some pretty good perspective and helps us realize some awesome symbolism having to do with baptism.

 

[Philo]

So let's go over what we agree on. You believe that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary in order that one might be saved. You believe that this can only be done with effect to salvation as long as some other conditions have already been met - one, for example, being belief. You also believe that the method for this baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins is to be by immersion.

Is all this right?

Actually, yes. But this doesn't preclude me from believing that there are other ways of undergoing effectual baptism that don't involve immersion. I believe that baptism by immersion is a very good method, however. At least it's time-tested .

Since when does cultural effect what God has said is necessary to be saved? I'm not being facetious or beligerant - I really am curious as to what you think on this.

Well, of course, from my point of view what culture says and what God wants are completely independent. Full-immersion water baptism was adopted as a ritual signifying entrance into the Christian community because it was first a ritual signifying the Ger's entrance into the Jewish community. This is why, when John began baptizing people, especially jews, for repentence, it ruffled some feathers. It was mighty presumptuous to imply that even ethnic and cultural Jews had strayed from the Convenant. The Christian baptism was an extension of this original idea, though now signifying a birth into God's Spirtual Israel. 1 Peter 3:21 contrasts the old understanding of mikveh, that is, a washing to remove the filth of the flesh, and the new, that is, an appeal for a good conscience through Jesus Christ.

I think the biggest reason for my not believing that full-immersion water baptism is the only route into heaven is this: You are saved not by believing in Jesus Christ, but by believing in Jesus Christ and also believing in water baptism. There are many people who believe in Jesus but dispute the necessity of water baptism with humility and honesty. They simply have a different outlook. I don't believe we are judged on outlooks (which can, do, and must vary among people) but on faith in Jesus Christ (which is the same everywhere it is).

And, yes, as Aaron eluded to, I believe that one is added into the church by a baptism of the Holy Spirit more than anything. I don't want to take anything away from water baptism, but I don't think that being a better judge of the scriptures is a qualification for entering Heaven.

Yes, because the baptism that the Eunuch underwent was for a completely different reason than that of those who were converted to Judaism. The baptism that you're refering to was not mandatory, and was nothing more than a ritual that could or could not be performed - and it was commanded no where to my knowledge in the Scriptures. The Eunuch was baptized because it was part of the message that was preached when Philip preached Jesus. If I were the Eunuch and I heard that I needed to the baptized in the name Jesus for the remission of my sins, and then I saw water, you better believe that I would have reacted in the exact same way

Well, for what it's worth, the mikveh (ritual immersion, from which the Christian baptism was adopted) was (and still is) necessary for all converts to judaism. Furthermore, the mikveh was (and still is) necessary as part of the menstrual cleansing ritual among Jewish women. Just a tidbit. I'm fulla them.

 

[aggie03]

Can you show me in the Law where it's specifically required of Gentile converts to Judaism (referring to baptism)? That would be a very helpful verse to have

(I just wanted to add a note that I'm being serious, sometimes posts can come across as being a little cross or contentious. This isn't my attitude or aim )