Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[ischus]

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

There is not one.

In fact, there is no mention of it in Philo, Josephus, or the OT/NT.

However, some 1st century works do make mention of it, including Epictetus, the fourth Sibylline Oracle, as well as some discussion in the Mishnah.

It is pretty well established that this practice was in effect at least as early as J.B. and Jesus.

 

[aggie03]

So it would seem as if this was a tradition of men rather than a commandment of God?

 

[ischus]

As you know, the concept of water for cleansing is strongly based in the Old Testament, but as far as Proselyte Baptism goes, I would agree with you that it was man-made. Inferences can be made from the OT, but there is not a very strong case for it.

It kind of parallels the synogogue concept: both are man-made and there just isn't much historical material available to discuss it.

 

[Philo]

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 )

Like Ischus said. It's important to remember that the Hebrew canon contains a great deal more than just Torah. Talmud is actually considered more important as far as day to day life is concerned than Torah. Now, I don't know my Talmud, but I imagine Mikveh, Milah, and Mitzvot (the three steps to Jewish conversion) are probably in there. Considering its very prominent role in the greater histo-cultural Law, I'd bet on it.

,

Philo

 

[aggie03]

Well, the Talmud is just a collection of Jewish tradition - ones that came from men. Even should this be regarded as more important in day to day life than the Scriptures (a very serious error I believe), it still does not give inspiration to the baptism that you are referring to. It was never commanded by God or made a condition of salvation by God until the New Covenant (although this was a completely different baptism).

This is the reason why I believe the Eunuch was baptized, not because of a teaching contained in the Talmud, but because of the gospel of Christ, because when Philip preached Jesus to him, it included being baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins.

,

Aggie03

 

[Aaron11]

Well, the Talmud is just a collection of Jewish tradition - ones that came from men. Even should this be regarded as more important in day to day life than the Scriptures (a very serious error I believe), it still does not give inspiration to the baptism that you are referring to. It was never commanded by God or made a condition of salvation by God until the New Covenant (although this was a completely different baptism).

This is the reason why I believe the Eunuch was baptized, not because of a teaching contained in the Talmud, but because of the gospel of Christ, because when Philip preached Jesus to him, it included being baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins.

,

Aggie03

The whole point was that Jews back in the day knew what baptism was. Though it was not written in the law, it was common practice and part of the process of a Gentile becoming a Procelyte Jew. There were also baptism that represented a purification that High priest had to undergo on the Day of Atonement that was to take place in the "Mikvah". So, the point stands: baptism meant something to Jews.

 

[Existential1]

What do people mean by salvation?

What do people see as being promised, or quaranteed, or secured; in, or as salvation?

Could differing emphases on baptism, reflect differing emphases on, and understandings of salvation?

I put forward these questions as someone for whom salvation remains something of an alien idea: and certainly does not figure experientially, in how I am, experience faith and trinity, proffess or witness.

It often seems to me that salvation: the idea and the pursuit of it; is a stumbling block, on the faith path.

It seems to me that the current Christian crises, are crucially being driven, if I can be forgiven the colour of the epithet, by salvation junkies.

Water baptism, as a ritual of formal induction to an in-group, as opposed to some personal experience of God encounter: may well be a crucial component part of what is driving these crises; where Christianity can become simply an in-group ideology, with being "spirit filled", and essentially within congregation, displacing origonal encounter with God, and alone.
Removing water baptism as formal ritual: might then become an integral aspect of retrieving the trinity truth from in-group explotation and domination; as preparatory step in encouraging Christians to again approach God alone.

It might all depend on how problematic we deem prevailing congregationalism to have become, in this regard.

 

[suzie]

It becomes faith + works to gain salvation. While throughout the scope of the Bible it is shown that the ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The outward acts are now BECAUSE of our salvation. It is our inward transformation by the Holy Spirit that comes only through Christ. It is given freely as a gift.

 

[Existential1]

It becomes faith + works to gain salvation. While throughout the scope of the Bible it is shown that the ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. The outward acts are now BECAUSE of our salvation. It is our inward transformation by the Holy Spirit that comes only through Christ. It is given freely as a gift.

Right suzie.

But: could you be pressed to say more on what salvation "is".

What are you, what have you: both with salvation; and without?

What is added in this having?
What is lost in its absence?

 

[western kentucky]

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

I do not hate "what if" situations - - I just know they don't carry any weight. There are a trillion situations that a person could come up in an attempt to discredit the necessity of baptism. These situations may be emotional, but they still do not erase what the bible teaches about "baptism."
God is clearly the judge. I am not perfectly just; therefore, I am not in the position to "condemn." In reality, I do not know how God will judge each individual. I'll leave that up to God, and I'll do what he has required of me - -to teach His word.

 

[western kentucky]

It becomes faith + works to gain salvation.

Suzie,

Faith is a work (It is something that we have to decide to do (John 6:28-29)). You have mentioned that faith is only one's acceptance in Jesus. The bible teaches that there is more to faith (James 2:14-26). Faith is an active response to God's word (consider Hebrews 11).

While throughout the scope of the Bible it is shown that the ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus Christ.

I agree with you (Heb. 12:2).

The outward acts are now BECAUSE of our salvation. It is our inward transformation by the Holy Spirit that comes only through Christ. It is given freely as a gift.

This appears to be an attempt to dodge what the bible teaches. Acts 2:38, 22:16, etc.. teach us that baptism is involved with one's salvation. If baptism washes away one's sins, then what state is one in before baptism? I hope that you don't take me wrong - The act of dipping in the water is not the only important thing - One's heart surely must be right. If one's heart is not right, then dipping in the water is no more than taking a bath. It is also important to note that baptism is not the only thing that God has commanded. Faith (Romans 10:17), repentance (Acts 2:38), confession (Acts 8:37), baptism (Acts 2:38), and living faithfully (Col 1:22-23) are all important steps that must be considered. After following these commands, one is still unprofitable; He has only done his duty (Luke 17:10) - This is the beauty behind God's grace.

 

[Philo]

This appears to be an attempt to dodge what the bible teaches.

One must be careful to make the distinction between "what the Bible teaches" and "what I think the Bible teaches." The Bible teaches Christ died on the cross and rose on the third day. These are facts, beyond disptute. I think the bible teaches salvation independent of full-immersion water baptism. This is an opinion, and is quite obviously well within the realm of dispute.

A "why" for a "why" makes the whole word very confused,

Philo

 

[Aaron11]

What do people mean by salvation?

What do people see as being promised, or quaranteed, or secured; in, or as salvation?

Could differing emphases on baptism, reflect differing emphases on, and understandings of salvation?

I put forward these questions as someone for whom salvation remains something of an alien idea: and certainly does not figure experientially, in how I am, experience faith and trinity, proffess or witness.

It often seems to me that salvation: the idea and the pursuit of it; is a stumbling block, on the faith path.

It seems to me that the current Christian crises, are crucially being driven, if I can be forgiven the colour of the epithet, by salvation junkies.

Water baptism, as a ritual of formal induction to an in-group, as opposed to some personal experience of God encounter: may well be a crucial component part of what is driving these crises; where Christianity can become simply an in-group ideology, with being "spirit filled", and essentially within congregation, displacing origonal encounter with God, and alone.
Removing water baptism as formal ritual: might then become an integral aspect of retrieving the trinity truth from in-group explotation and domination; as preparatory step in encouraging Christians to again approach God alone.

It might all depend on how problematic we deem prevailing congregationalism to have become, in this regard.

Good question. I don't know how well my viewpoint would satisfy your desire for a complete answer, but here goes...

Since man has sin, man has guilt and an even higher price to pay, the separation from God and love. Once we are saved, we can know that we are loved by our God who has bridged the gap between us and Him with His perfect love. This means that we will have God living in us (via the Holy Spirit). When we have God living in us, our lives change. We no longer walk by the flesh, but instead walk by the spirit. Salvation is something that affects us right here and right now. Salvation is also something that is eternal and will keep us unified with our God throughout eternity.

There are my two,

Aaron

 

[Aaron11]

I do not hate "what if" situations - - I just know they don't carry any weight. There are a trillion situations that a person could come up in an attempt to discredit the necessity of baptism. These situations may be emotional, but they still do not erase what the bible teaches about "baptism."

They do carry weight in this situation because when you make a hard and fast rule that baptism is necessary for all to be saved, that includes all of the what if situations.

God is clearly the judge. I am not perfectly just; therefore, I am not in the position to "condemn." In reality, I do not know how God will judge each individual. I'll leave that up to God, and I'll do what he has required of me - -to teach His word.

If you or I are not the judge, then we can not make broad statements like, "All people who live in the NT time must be baptized to be saved", because that is necessarily implying judgement on all of those people, for whatever reason, weren't baptized. So, I think the proper phrasing of the teaching of God's message on baptism would go something like this, "God wants you to be baptized. If you want to follow Him, you will be baptized." You see, that way you don't have to condemn people you have no right condemning, and you teach God's will all at the same time. Yay.

Whoomp there it is,

Aaron

 

[Aaron11]

This appears to be an attempt to dodge what the bible teaches. Acts 2:38, 22:16, etc.. teach us that baptism is involved with one's salvation. If baptism washes away one's sins, then what state is one in before baptism? I hope that you don't take me wrong - The act of dipping in the water is not the only important thing - One's heart surely must be right. If one's heart is not right, then dipping in the water is no more than taking a bath. It is also important to note that baptism is not the only thing that God has commanded. Faith (Romans 10:17), repentance (Acts 2:38), confession (Acts 8:37), baptism (Acts 2:38), and living faithfully (Col 1:22-23) are all important steps that must be considered. After following these commands, one is still unprofitable; He has only done his duty (Luke 17:10) - This is the beauty behind God's grace.

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Double booyah,

Aaron

 

[aggie03]

The whole point was that Jews back in the day knew what baptism was. Though it was not written in the law, it was common practice and part of the process of a Gentile becoming a Procelyte Jew. There were also baptism that represented a purification that High priest had to undergo on the Day of Atonement that was to take place in the "Mikvah". So, the point stands: baptism meant something to Jews.

But it didn't necessarily mean anything to the Gentiles who would be later converted. And it really doesn't matter if it meant anything to the Jews before hand, becuase baptism for the remission of sins is commanded - an altogether completely different reason for why a convert would have been baptized anyway. And the best thing is, this was commanded by God

 

[Philo]

But it didn't necessarily mean anything to the Gentiles who would be later converted. And it really doesn't matter if it meant anything to the Jews before hand, becuase baptism for the remission of sins is commanded - an altogether completely different reason for why a convert would have been baptized anyway. And the best thing is, this was commanded by God

It's interesting to note that Alexander Campbell was the first person to propose that baptism was for the remission of sins. Before his exegesis of Acts 2:38, no one had ever considered that the text might be indicating that. Of course Alexander Campbell wasn't baptized "for the remission of sins", as he was baptized before he made that discovery.

And the reason it does matter that baptism was a familiar ritual to the people of the near east is this: God didn't invent baptism with John, nor on the day of Pentacost. It was a borrowed ritual. It was used because it already had a place in the culture. If, for instance, annointing was the mode of introduction into the Jewish community, I imagine annointing would be the issue here.

The ritual of baptism is significant because of its cultural heritage, and not despite it. It wasn't meaningful because it was in the biblical record. It's in the biblical record because it was meaningful beforehand.

Again, my biggest issue is the idea that knowing about Christ and recognizing baptism as necessary for salvation are both necessities for salvation. The life and teachings of Christ, His death for our sins, and His ressurection to glory are all matters of fact. You cannot honestly argue that the Bible doesn't present the Gospel as such. However, things such as baptism, meeting and taking communion on the first day, and living a Godly life are all things that there is no little debate about. Why God would pin our salvation not only on faith but also a certain way of looking at the Bible and certain conclusions drawn there from illudes me completely.

Still Looking out for Number 3,

Philo

 

[western kentucky]

One must be careful to make the distinction between "what the Bible teaches" and "what I think the Bible teaches." The Bible teaches Christ died on the cross and rose on the third day. These are facts, beyond disptute. I think the bible teaches salvation independent of full-immersion water baptism. This is an opinion, and is quite obviously well within the realm of dispute.

A "why" for a "why" makes the whole word very confused,

Philo

Philo,

You are obviously trying to make a distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine." The bible uses them as synonymous terms. Jesus taught that one must believe and be baptized(Mk 16:16)? Peter taught that one must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins(Acts 2:38)? Is this my opinion?

 

[western kentucky]

They do carry weight in this situation because when you make a hard and fast rule that baptism is necessary for all to be saved, that includes all of the what if situations.

"What if" situations do not carry weight in biblical discussions. One could possibly find loopholes in all of God's commands with hypothetical situations - - The problem is.... A person making up these "what if" situations truly doesn't know the outcome. That is why one should only teach the word of God.

If you or I are not the judge, then we can not make broad statements like, "All people who live in the NT time must be baptized to be saved", because that is necessarily implying judgement on all of those people, for whatever reason, weren't baptized. So, I think the proper phrasing of the teaching of God's message on baptism would go something like this, "God wants you to be baptized. If you want to follow Him, you will be baptized." You see, that way you don't have to condemn people you have no right condemning, and you teach God's will all at the same time. Yay.

Whoomp there it is,

Aaron

After considering the conversions in the Book of Acts, and other scriptures in the New Testament - - I conclude that baptism is necessary for salvation. I am not worried about condemning all the people in the past who were not baptized. I am not in that position. My intention is to teach those who have the ability to believe and respond to the gospel.

 

[Philo]

Philo,

You are obviously trying to make a distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine." The bible uses them as synonymous terms. Jesus taught that one must believe and be baptized(Mk 16:16)? Peter taught that one must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins(Acts 2:38)? Is this my opinion?

First off, "euaggelion" and "didace" and two very very different words that mean two very very different things and are used in two very very different ways. This is a discussion for another thread, but I would like to know where doctrine and Gospel are used to mean the same thing.

In the first case, yes. It's debatable. First of all, because this passage wasn't part of the original manuscripts and secondly because it's dubious say that the "and be baptized" is equal with the belief, since only disbelief is equated with condemnation and since other passages that mention belief as a condition of salvation leave out baptism completely.

In the second case, no. Peter did tell the crowd and be baptized for the remission of sins. However, there is a question as to whether he was saying "repent [to gain the] remission of sins" or "repent [because of your] remission of sins."