Is baptism necessary to be saved?

[Philo]

I am sorry if you think I am being harsh. That is not my objective. I am simply stating what the word of God says. I take the word of God very seriously and I have to check my personal feelings and thoughts at the door and just rely upon the word of God and his perfect will. I am not personally attacking you or the salvation army I am only trying to teach you the word of God. I challenge you to find the salvation army church in the Bible. Take a look at Eph 4:4ff you will see that there is only 1 body/church. If you are going to call you church something it should be called something that glorifies its owner Jesus Christ. Jesus purchased the church with his own blood Act 20:28 and we should use names or designations authorized in the Bible. Notice a few of the authorized designations.

Romans 16:16​

Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
​

Jesus made it clear that we must worship God in spirit and in truth John 4:24 and that the truth is the word of God John 17:17. Jesus and the apostles warned that false teachers would come in and pervert the word of God. In order for you to determine if the salvation army is teaching the word of God only then you need to compare what they teach and how they worship and compare it to what the word of God says. If they are not worshiping God in spririt and in truth then find a church that is teaching what the bible teaches. This will be for you to determine and must search the scriptures daily. The same thing holds true to anything I post in this forum. Dont take my word for it look at what the word of God says and and see if I am proclaiming the truth or proclaiming a lie.​

Notice what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees.​

Matthew 15:7-9 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' " ​

As you can see it possible to worship God in vain and God will not stand for it. Just because a denomination may seem Godly and profess God with their lips doesnt mean that they are worshiping God in spirit and in truth. If they are adding or taking away things from the word of God then they teaching doctrines and commandments of men.​

Baptism is very very clear Jesus commanded it Mat. 28:19, Mark 16:16, It is the point that one is added to the church/kingdom 1Cor 12:13 Its the point where are sins are washed away and we are united with Christ in his death burial and resurection acts 2:38, 22:16, Col 2:12-13, Rom 6:1-12, Gal. 3:27.​

Dont put the importance on what the salvation army teaches instead put your importance on what the word of God teaches and go by it.​

Cougan,

I was going to argue with you.

But I decided not to.

<3<3<3,

Philo

 

[Philo]

You got me there. I can't recall a single person who died on their way to being baptised.
However, virtually all members of The Salvation Army are unbaptised. So, all the dead ones are unsaved, in your analysis. And for the ones who are alive, it's just a matter of time.

So you will see why this seems harsh to me. Why would God raises us up as a movement, only to damn us all to hell? Perhaps He didn't raise us up. In which case...

what???

Matthew 7:15-20

And if anyone gives you lip, just refer them to James 2:18.

Philo

 

[ischus]

I have noticed that the main division on this issue is based on the false dichotomy between faith and works and on the question of whether or not baptism is a work. Most people know that faith and works go hand in hand, and that one cannot exist without the other (this is not just in James either). Even so, we are not saved by either one, as some have pointed out. We are saved by the grace of God. Upon receiving salvation, we are called to do good works (Eph.2:10). Most people agree with the concept of salvation by grace and being saved unto good works. The problem is that many have misinterpreted baptism as a work, and therefore discount it in light of 'salvation by grace.' The theology of baptism is important. Anyone who actually understands it will want to be baptized. Unfortunately, the majority of teaching in our churches about baptism neglects the rich theological message of baptism. They skip over this out of ignorance and simply give examples from the bible, showing that it is a "command" and implying that it is a work. This just is not so. It makes me sad to see so many on both sides-- the ones who command the work of baptism for salvation or else, as well as the ones who claim salvation by grace apart from baptism. Both views come from a lack of understanding about baptism. Anyone who understands New Testament Christian baptism would not claim either one of these.

ischus

 

[CaDan]

I have noticed that the main division on this issue is based on the false dichotomy between faith and works and on the question of whether or not baptism is a work. Most people know that faith and works go hand in hand, and that one cannot exist without the other (this is not just in James either). Even so, we are not saved by either one, as some have pointed out. We are saved by the grace of God. Upon receiving salvation, we are called to do good works (Eph.2:10). Most people agree with the concept of salvation by grace and being saved unto good works. The problem is that many have misinterpreted baptism as a work, and therefore discount it in light of 'salvation by grace.' The theology of baptism is important. Anyone who actually understands it will want to be baptized. Unfortunately, the majority of teaching in our churches about baptism neglects the rich theological message of baptism. They skip over this out of ignorance and simply give examples from the bible, showing that it is a "command" and implying that it is a work. This just is not so. It makes me sad to see so many on both sides-- the ones who command the work of baptism for salvation or else, as well as the ones who claim salvation by grace apart from baptism. Both views come from a lack of understanding about baptism. Anyone who understands New Testament Christian baptism would not claim either one of these.

ischus

I think you are on to something here.

My feeling is our problem is that the theology about baptism left by the NT writers is, well, scanty. This is not because baptism was not important to them--it clearly was very important. My suspicion is that baptism was something that all the early Christians agreed on without much debate about its meaning. Thus, the writers of the NT never had any controversies to address about baptism. Paul and the Gospel writers could just assume everybody know what they were taling about when they mentioned baptism, so they did not have to explain it again.

 

[workman]

My suspicion is that baptism was something that all the early Christians agreed on without much debate about its meaning. Thus, the writers of the NT never had any controversies to address about baptism. Paul and the Gospel writers could just assume everybody know what they were taling about when they mentioned baptism, so they did not have to explain it again.

ABSOLUTELY!

The Apostle Peter's letter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 mentions to:

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

A RULE OF INTERPRETATION THAT IS USED IN COURTS OF LAW:


4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."

KEEPING THIS IN MIND...

An excellent resource for what interpretation was handed down comes from the Ante-Nicean period of time in history. This ranged from approx. 50AD about up to 325AD. In fact no Catholic or Protestant who accepts the New Testament as being the inspired words of God should challenge these early Christians, since it is through them that we identied the 27 Spirit inspired books included in the "canon of scriptures" we call the New Testament.

For Catholics you can ask your priest and he'll tell you this.

For Protestants see the books:
Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell p. 36-38
Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley chapters 3-8.

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE NOT DIVIDED....
These early Christians wrote at a time when mainline Christianity agreed on the essentials and the ones who didn't were identified and their errors written about. For the most part the main dissentors from the truth at this period of time were called "Gnostics." The letters of these early Ante-Nicean Christians claim Gnostic teaching came from Simon mentioned in the book of Acts who was into Sorcery/magic. From their the Gnositics divided and made up all sorts of wierd teaching with a "hint" of truth wrapped in a lie. In fact even the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote about their false teachings in our New Testament scriptures by the way they described their teaching.

WARNING!!!!!!
One will notice that in their writings a few of them call themselves "Catholic" in faith. Please don't let this applaud you if you are Catholic or to disturb you if you are Protestant as the term "Catholic" was a latin word that meant "Universal" and this is what they meant by it. Nothing more. To demonstrate that here is a quote:

.............."By the end of the second century the term catholic was widely used of the church in the sense that the Catholic church was both universal, in contrast to local congregations, and orthodox, in conrast to heretial groups."........Bruce L. Shelley (Chruch History in Plain Language p. 28)

Both the Catholic church of today and the various Protestant groups will find these early writers may disagree with some of the teaching that has either been added or taken away from them. For those seeking the truth I challenge you to look into their writings.

To view their letters for yourself visit: www.ccel.org/fathers2/

They write on various subjects and many of them were martyered for their faith. Their letters are inspirational and their courage puts many Christians to shame today. I encourage anyone who wants to get back to the original teachings of the bible to take a look at what these early Christians wrote. They may not be alive to testify in person, but their letters more than testify for them as to what they believed. You may not want to agree with them at first, but one cannot deny that their view was the original view...not the "new" popular view.

RE: BAPTISM...well, I have found some quotes from them and I will put them in the next comment down. So please read on to hear what they taught and believed.

~Workman

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

 

[Qoheleth]

I would also like to encourage the reading of the Early church fathers. It is compelling to have found out that some of these ECFs were students of the apostles. Many ECFs spoke of baptism and the Lords supper and you will also see great agreement on issues such as infant baptism, the real presence of ther Lord at communion and so on (to my surprise)

 

[workman]

....................THE FOLLOWING LETTERS ARE FOUND IN........................

ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOL. I
<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/>

WHAT THEY BELIEVED AND TAUGHT:

I. BELIEF + BAPTISM (in that order) for SALVATION:
II. BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
III. BAPTISM FOR REGENERATION (NEW LIFE IN CHRIST/BORN AGAIN)
IV: RECEIVED THIS TEACHING ON BAPTISM FROM APOSTLES:

==============================================
WITNESS ONE:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (approx. a.d. 50-107)
Chapter II.

"Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection."

NOTE: His statement agrees specifically with the teaching of the bible connecting faith & Baptism inseparably for salvation.
+ Romans 6:5&8 (See context of Romans 6:1-11)
+ Mark 16:15-16
+ Galatians 3:26-27
+ 1 Peter 3:21
+ Titus 3:5 (See context of Titus 3:1-8)
======================================================

WITNESS TWO:

The Epistle of Barnabas (a.d. 100)
Chapter XI.-Baptism and the Cross Prefigured in the Old Testament.

"Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves. The prophet therefore declares, "Be astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because this people hath committed two great evils: they have forsaken Me, a living fountain, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns." ...we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit."

NOTE: His statement concerning the water of "Baptism which leads to the remission of sins" agrees with these passages in the Bible connecting Baptism as final step of faith for forgiveness/remission of sins:
+Acts 2:38
+Acts 22:16
NOTE: The writer also quotes several OT passages here but I only included his quote of Jeremiah 2:12-13 above.
================================================

WITNESS THREE:
Justin Martyr - The First Apology [defense] Of Justin
Chapter. LXI.--Christian Baptism. (Approx. a.d. 110-165)

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

"And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and ... in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated [who understands] is washed."

NOTE: Exaimine his quotes and see they agree with the other two writers and with the bible:

----- Belief then baptism:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true...Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated..."

"become the children of CHOICE and KNOWLEDGE, and may obtain IN THE WATER"

-----Repentance & Baptism for forgiveness of sins

a) "instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting" (Demonstrates Repentance)

b) "how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, ... "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; ...come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow." -Here Justin quotes Isaiah 1:16-20

c) "and may obtain IN THE WATER the remission of sins formerly committed,"

-------Baptism for regeneration/New life/Born again:

a) "relate the manner in which we... had been made new through Christ..."

b) "regenerated in the same manner in which we were ... in the name of... the Father and ...of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -Here Justin mentions Baptism in name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as spoken by Jesus in Matthew 28:19 & also quotes Jesus in John 3:3-7

"...there is pronounced over him who CHOOSES to be BORN AGAIN, and has REPENTED of his sins, the name of God the Father...the name of Jesus Christ...and in the name of the Holy Ghost..."

Conclusion: Again see biblical passages mentioned above as well as notice these apply to "Born again" "new birth" directly:
a) Titus 3:5 "washing of regeneration" or "washing of rebirth"
b) John 3:3-7 "Born of water and the Spirit" "Born again"
c) Romans 6:4-5 "New life" and also "United" or "Planted" here in the Greek is:
4854 sumfutov sumphutos {soom'-foo-tos}
MEANING: 1) born together with, of joint origin


MORE JUSTIN MARTYR -
"Dialogue of Justin"
Chapter XIV.-Righteousness is Not Placed in Jewish Rites, But in the Conversion of the Heart Given in Baptism by Christ.

"By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life."

===============================================
TO BE CONTINUED.....SEE NEXT REPLY DOWN...

 

[Qoheleth]

• Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth. Jaochim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. His parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' supports a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years' ... for which there is no evidence at all."

• Jeremias supposes something similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is "sixty five years in the Lord." Since this reference to his age is made "because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing," Jeremias postulates that his baptism "took place soon after birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism."

• Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from childhood.

• No incident is recorded in the earliest of Christian history which gives evidence that baptism was forbidden to any person on the basis of an age limit, or that the right of a Christian parent to have his children baptized had ever been challenged or renounced.

• Although several examples exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.

• Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as practicing it.

• A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the convert's family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews.

• There is no evidence that anyone being against infant baptism in the early Church on the grounds that you must first "believe" and be baptized. Tertulian (160 230 A.D.), was the only one who questioned infant baptism. The bulk of his objection, however, was due to his heresy that sin after baptism was almost unforgivable.

• Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.

 

[workman]

Falling Away from the Truth Predicted:

...........................................Acts 20:29-31

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."

...........................................1 Timothy 4:1

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

...........................................Colossians 2:8-12

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."


HERETICAL DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION:


WITNESS FOUR:

Irenaeus Against Heresies approx. a.d. 120-202
Chapter XXI.-The Views of Redemption Entertained by These Heretics.

"1. It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

"2. They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all..."

"4. ...These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. ...and therefore knowledge is the redemption of the inner man. ...The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption."

=======================================
IN CONCLUSION:

The work of Irenaeus Against Heresies is "one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an account and refutation of those multiform Gnostic heresies which prevailed in the latter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an exposition and defence of the Catholic [universal] faith." `Quote from "Intro" to Irenaeus

There is so much more,too many to include them all in this reply. See them for yourself at above mentioned internet address or email me privately for more excerps of them.

==============================================
OTHER TEACHINGS ON BAPTISM IN HISTORY:

Notice these 3 major ideas taught by various churches are considered NEW not OLD.

1. Infant Immersion (No faith necessary)

Incorporated due to new teaching of "Origianl sin" and "Depravity of man" by Augustine. (300's /4th century) but still somewhat controversial...not fully accepted. Thus the Counsel of Nicea to meet regarding this and other new strange teachings beginning to pop up. Thus the "Nicene Creed."

2. Sprinkling adopted as teaching replacing Immersion:

1054 A.D One of four major issues as to why a church split happened: Roman Catholic Church vs. Eastern Othodox (Catholic) Church The Greeks (East) knew the Greek language meant Immersion so they were adament about refusing sprinkling for Baptism on their teaching.

3. Faith only salvation apart from the need for Baptism (1527)

Idea introduced by Zwingli in Switzerland. Sounds like a compromising return to ideas above of redemption as taught by some early Gnostic writers. Although, admittedly not a full resurgance of Gnostic doctrine; since the Gnostics were considered heretical not only for their views on Baptism, but also because they taught wrongly about Jesus.

Notice Apostacy is Gradual and gets worse over time. One should put on the breaks now and re-examine what their church teaches. Challenge your church leaders to teach the only the truth and not their traditions on this or any other subject.

===============================================
NOW WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Advise from the Prophet Jeremiah in: Jeremiah 6:16a

This is what the LORD says:

"Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls."

Study the Word of God with all dilegence! Hopefully after discovering the truth you will not be like those who have gone before us and promoted error, disunity and division. Consider the warning in the second half of this verse:

Jeremiah 6:16b-17

But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'
I appointed watchmen over you and said,
'Listen to the sound of the trumpet!'
But you said, 'We will not listen.'

Today the "trumpet" has sounded off a warning. I beg you to listen to the sound of the trumpet and repent of any doctrine that you may have believed that contradicts scripture and let us unite in love on the truth of God's word promising to teach nothing more and nothing less!!!

Again, If you have more questions or want to discuss Biblical Baptism in more depth PLEASE email me a private message and we can talk about it. Let's promote good thinking with respect in hopes for unity among ALL believers.

`Workman

Galatians 1:10
"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." ~The Apostle Paul

2 Corinthians 13:5
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you–unless, of course, you fail the test?"

2 Timothy 2:15
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Proverbs 28:14
"Blessed is the man who always fears the LORD, but he who hardens his heart falls into trouble."

Acts 17:11
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Proverbs 14:15
"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps."

 

[Qoheleth]

• Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following:

"He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."

Here we read that Jesus Christ came that all might be reborn in God. "How can an infant be reborn if he cannot believe?" a person may ask. I ask in return, "How can an infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained from baptizing him?" Is a child who has not reached the "age of accountability/reason" not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when he then needs to be reborn?

​

• Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent:

"For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."

In his Homily on Luke he again states his beliefs on infant baptism:

"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized. "

​

• Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well:

"And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."

​

• There is not one Church Father who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism. It was in no locality and at no time viewed as something that was created after New Testament times.

 

[workman]

Qoheleth,

Hi, Thanks for sharing information.

I would appreciate it if you were to quote these writers and what they said exactly. Could you also give references as to where I can look these up? You'll notice that I give you this much. That would allow for others to look into your claims as well.

Regarding "infant baptism" in the New Testament:

There is no teaching on this practice. Baptism was always connected with a believer's faith as the first step. Maybe I will quote these next time so that we can examine them together....as "iron sharpens iron."

By the way, Children (not infants) can "believe" and "choose" to repent and follow Christ of their own accord after first being instructed. They should not be denied baptism if this is there choice.

For an example: I was raised going to church and hearing the gospel of Jesus. I was Baptized into Christ by immersion just after turning 10 years old. It was at that time that I realized I wanted Christ as my own personal Savior and LORD of my life. I talked with my parents about this and then with the preacher of the church. I asked to be baptized of my own prompting. I wanted to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit offered to me by repentant faith, confessing Jesus before men to be the "Christ and Son of the Living God" and uniting with him through the water of Christian Baptism. I have remained a Christian ever since...continuing to grow in the Grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and walking in obediance to him.

I would encourage anyone who was baptized as an infant to make this declaration of their faith personally and be baptized into Christ "for the forgiveness of YOUR sins" (Acts 2:38) not those of Adam and Eve or your parents.

In essence this would not be "rebaptism" but actually Baptism for the first time since it accompanies faith. One should desire to receive Jesus because of your own faith in him as Savior and Lord, not because of your parents faith or your churches practices.

Consider: an infant cannot choose for Christ or against Christ. They will not be held accountable for what they could not understand and therefore accept or reject. God is a righteous judge and will judge fairly and righteously. This is scriptural.

Time for dinner. I'll get back to ya later on those verses for everyone's benefit.

Workman

 

[Qoheleth]

I would appreciate it if you were to quote these writers and what they said exactly

I thought I had quoted them exactly.

You see, early Christian practice included infant Baptism.

I think our issue is if we are born in sin, corrupted and inheriting the sin of Adam, then can the word of God in Baptism work faith and the Forgiveness of sins even in an infant.

All that I am trying to put forth is that earliest of Church Fathers believed this to be true. Again, many were students of the Apostles.

 

[Qoheleth]

I understand that many times the debate regarding infant baptism is a defensive one; those who propose that adult baptism is the only valid form challenge those who practice infant baptism to prove that it is an acceptable practice. What if those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually unaddressed? Questions such as these:

• If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?
• Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?
• Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children?
• How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith?
• Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
• Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge?
• Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's fall - Romans 8:19-21).
• What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family?
• If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?
• If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous?
• In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith?

There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it is the practice of the Early Church. This at least is where my research has taken me.

 

[Mrs_DeBey]

Well, it said in matthew that the roman soldiers broke the legs of the other two men to speed of the process so that they would die sooner. When they went to Jesus to do the same...The roman soldier saw that he was already dead..so they peirced his side with a spear and water came out of his side. He was already dead....so the theif would have been in the new law.

 

[apenman]

Well, it said in matthew that the roman soldiers broke the legs of the other two men to speed of the process so that they would die sooner. When they went to Jesus to do the same...The roman soldier saw that he was already dead..so they peirced his side with a spear and water came out of his side. He was already dead....so the theif would have been in the new law.

And BTW, when was the thief on the cross baptised??

 

[evangelist]

I understand that many times the debate regarding infant baptism is a defensive one; those who propose that adult baptism is the only valid form challenge those who practice infant baptism to prove that it is an acceptable practice. What if those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually unaddressed? Questions such as these:

• If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?
• Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?
• Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children?
• How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith?
• Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
• Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge?
• Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's fall - Romans 8:19-21).
• What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family?
• If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?
• If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous?
• In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith?

There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it is the practice of the Early Church. This at least is where my research has taken me.

What sins did a infant do that they have to get baptized any ways?
Can an infant repent?
Does a infant understand what water baptism is , and what it does?
Do they have a free choice to get baptized??
What make them righteous the water or the Spirit, or the believing
can an infant believe??

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)"