Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[7ruth]

This is a remake of the thread I started in the Christian Talk and Advice forums. Here is the original thread.

Anyways...

Do you have to be baptized in order to be saved? I used to think that you don't, but these verses got me thinking...

1 Peter 3:21

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit

After reading some of the posts in the thread, I replied with this,

We are not saved by water baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 is only one verse that says that. Wisdom tells us we do not build a doctrine on the strength of one isolated verse. There are no others.

Touche. But you can't just disregard this verse. If my doctrine is wrong, surely there must be some explanation for this verse? And St. Peter simply mentions this fact without presenting it as something novel or new. The way he just passingly mentions it assumes that we already know that Baptism saves because he was writing to orthodox Christians who already knew and had been taught that.

Anyways, there's also Heb. 10:22, Jn. 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38 or Mark 16:16.

In the same parallel order, of water and Spirit we see Jesus referencing flesh (water) and Spirit. In the days that Jesus lived, the common wording for the act of giving birth used the term for 'water', which was a common reference to the amniotic fluid that passes at birth. That is what Jesus was referring to. He was not referring to water baptism.

Is there any proof for this? Do you have any specific source?

When speaking of Baptism, it is dangerous to view Baptism as a line in the sand which divides those destine to hell, and those headed toward heaven.

Believing like all Christianity has historically believed is dangerous? How so?

I agree, and a very good point indeed.

As dangerous is to view Baptism as a rite which allows you to be a member of a particular denomination ( 1 Corinthians 1)

St. Paul also said that "there must be divisions among you" (1 Cor. 11:19).

Too often the gospel is presented as if there is some kind of "essential checklist" that must be checked off and then "your in!" And, if something isn't necessary for salvation, then it isn't necessary at all. This really isn't the way to look at the gospel or our salvation

I agree, to an extent. That's why Orthodox Christians see salvation as a process where we always strive for salvation as opposed to Protestantism's "once saved always saved" idea.

 

[elijah23]

I would think baptism is a symbolic thing. To be saved, believe in Jesus. And once you’ve been saved, stop sinning.

 

[Alabaster]

1 Peter 3:21 NLT
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Amplified tells it well:
21And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Mike S]

Do you have to be baptized in order to be saved?

As a Methodist I believe in justification by faith alone. Baptism is a sacrament, which represents, and through which we experience, our new birth into God's Grace through our Savior Jesus Christ, but it is one of the great mysteries and miracles of our relationship with God that we can experience His Grace at any time and in any place.

God is sovereign, and God will save whom God will save.

 

[AKJVReader]

The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised but still went to Paradise. So you can still go to Heaven without Baptism.
Though there are still these passages:

Mat 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Act 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Romans 6:3-11 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

[cosmicutopia]

What about Matthew 3:11 and Mark 1:8?

 

[dadof10]

The Amplified tells it well:
21And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"from inward questionings and fears"??? REALLY??? :biglol

I didn't think anyone used the Amplified Bible for serious apologetics, and for good reason (illustrated above). The author is obviously bringing his preconcieved bias into his quasi-interpretation.

Wouldn't accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour also "save you [from inward questionings and fears]"? In fact, this convoluted interpretation would fit better here:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved [from inward questionings and fears]."

It's a stretch to think that baptism by itself would alleviate questionings and fears, however faith in Christ would, don't you think?

 

[Alabaster]

"from inward questionings and fears"??? REALLY??? :biglol

I didn't think anyone used the Amplified Bible for serious apologetics, and for good reason (illustrated above). The author is obviously bringing his preconcieved bias into his quasi-interpretation.

Wouldn't accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour also "save you [from inward questionings and fears]"? In fact, this convoluted interpretation would fit better here:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved [from inward questionings and fears]."

It's a stretch to think that baptism by itself would alleviate questionings and fears, however faith in Christ would, don't you think?

Rather than be incredulous about certain scholarly interpretation, try to understand it. I do that.

To me, that bracketed phrase is a reference to the idea that water baptism isn't saving us from sin, because Jesus' blood is efficient to do that. Our water baptism cinches the truth of the fact that we have a clear conscience before God...and frees us from any fear or reticence in following Christ.

 

[dadof10]

Rather than be incredulous about certain scholarly interpretation, try to understand it. I do that.

The reason the Amplified Bible has been impugned over the years is BECAUSE it is completely UNSCHOLARLY. It's not just a different interpretation, it's comparible to the NWT.

"Although Mrs. Siewert had but little academic training in the original languages of the Bible, around 1950 she conceived the idea of producing an edition of the New Testament which would employ "amplifications" to bring out the meaning of the Greek words, as she found them explained in various scholarly sources, or as translated in different Bible versions. After obtaining financial support from the Lockman Foundation in 1952, she began working on the "Amplified New Testament." Her method was to take the American Standard Version as a base text, modernize the style, and, using sources like MarvinVincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, to incorporate glosses, explanatory phrases, and alternative renderings into the text. The complete New Testament was published by Zondervan in 1958, with an Introduction by Mrs. Siewert. It was soon brought to the attention of Billy Graham, who enthusiastically endorsed it, and it quickly became a commercial success. With continuing support from the Lockman Fondation and Zondervan, she then devoted herself to a similar edition of the Old Testament, in which she seems to have relied heavily on the Revised Standard Version. The final volume appeared in 1964, when Mrs. Siewert was eighty-three years old. She died three years later.

After the publication of Siewert's three volumes, the Lockman Foundation employed several scholars to revise the entire work for a one-volume edition, which was published in 1965. The names of the revisers have not been made public. [Sound familiar???] In this revised edition Mrs. Siewert's original Introduction is replaced by a "Publisher's Foreword" in which it is said that the purpose of the Amplified Bible is "to reveal, together with the single word English equivalent to each Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of translation," so that "the full meaning of the key words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible."

The Amplified Bible

To me, that bracketed phrase is a reference to the idea that water baptism isn't saving us from sin, because Jesus' blood is efficient to do that. Our water baptism cinches the truth of the fact that we have a clear conscience before God...and frees us from any fear or reticence in following Christ.

You're bringing your preconcieved doctrinal bias (e.g. "water baptism isn't saving us from sin, because Jesus' blood is efficient to do that") into your exegesis. Alabaster, why did you choose the relatively obscure Amplified Bible to quote here? Because it reinforces what you already hold?

Here is the entire Passage:

19 After being made alive,he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

It's going to be hard to make the case that the resurrection saved us from "from inward questionings and fears".

Peter is obviously talking about salvation from sin and eternal damnnation, which is what the resurrection accomplished.

 

[kiwimac]

The reason the Amplified Bible has been impugned over the years is BECAUSE it is completely UNSCHOLARLY. It's not just a different interpretation, it's comparible to the NWT.

"Although Mrs. Siewert had but little academic training in the original languages of the Bible, around 1950 she conceived the idea of producing an edition of the New Testament which would employ "amplifications" to bring out the meaning of the Greek words, as she found them explained in various scholarly sources, or as translated in different Bible versions. After obtaining financial support from the Lockman Foundation in 1952, she began working on the "Amplified New Testament." Her method was to take the American Standard Version as a base text, modernize the style, and, using sources like MarvinVincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, to incorporate glosses, explanatory phrases, and alternative renderings into the text. The complete New Testament was published by Zondervan in 1958, with an Introduction by Mrs. Siewert. It was soon brought to the attention of Billy Graham, who enthusiastically endorsed it, and it quickly became a commercial success. With continuing support from the Lockman Fondation and Zondervan, she then devoted herself to a similar edition of the Old Testament, in which she seems to have relied heavily on the Revised Standard Version. The final volume appeared in 1964, when Mrs. Siewert was eighty-three years old. She died three years later.

After the publication of Siewert's three volumes, the Lockman Foundation employed several scholars to revise the entire work for a one-volume edition, which was published in 1965. The names of the revisers have not been made public. [Sound familiar???] In this revised edition Mrs. Siewert's original Introduction is replaced by a "Publisher's Foreword" in which it is said that the purpose of the Amplified Bible is "to reveal, together with the single word English equivalent to each Hebrew and Greek word, any other clarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of translation," so that "the full meaning of the key words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible."

The Amplified Bible



You're bringing your preconcieved doctrinal bias (e.g. "water baptism isn't saving us from sin, because Jesus' blood is efficient to do that") into your exegesis. Alabaster, why did you choose the relatively obscure Amplified Bible to quote here? Because it reinforces what you already hold?

Here is the entire Passage:

19 After being made alive,he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

It's going to be hard to make the case that the resurrection saved us from "from inward questionings and fears".

Peter is obviously talking about salvation from sin and eternal damnnation, which is what the resurrection accomplished.

And still the Amplified version is a good tool disparage it all you want.

 

[Vic C.]

I believe if you are able to be baptized, you should do it, in obedience. One must take into account that there were/are many believers that for whatever reason, just cannot be baptized. It could be a disability, it could be they died prior to their baptism, etc.

AKJVReader brought to light the Biblical example of someone who was promised a place with Jesus but was never baptized.

We must also ask ourselves, what was the reason for the baptism of Jesus? Could it be His was sufficient for those who couldn't?

 

[dadof10]

And still the Amplified version is a good tool disparage it all you want.

Yes, a tool. Like any other subjective commentary.

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[Alabaster]

The reason the Amplified Bible has been impugned over the years is BECAUSE it is completely UNSCHOLARLY. It's not just a different interpretation, it's comparible to the NWT.

The topic is baptism as necessary or unnecessary for salvation---not Bible versions.

You're bringing your preconcieved doctrinal bias (e.g. "water baptism isn't saving us from sin, because Jesus' blood is efficient to do that") into your exegesis. Alabaster, why did you choose the relatively obscure Amplified Bible to quote here? Because it reinforces what you already hold?

I like referring to the Amplified because it gives the full spectrum of meaning for various words from the Greek. It is useful. I like it.

I have no preconceived bias, for the Lord Himself has taught me. He is Truth.

It's going to be hard to make the case that the resurrection saved us from "from inward questionings and fears".

Feel free to disregard it. I overlook it as an anomaly. It doesn't threaten my understanding of the word of God.

Peter is obviously talking about salvation from sin and eternal damnnation, which is what the resurrection accomplished.

Yes, but not baptism, which is a response to one's salvation.

 

[dadof10]

I believe if you are able to be baptized, you should do it, in obedience. One must take into account that there were/are many believers that for whatever reason, just cannot be baptized. It could be a disability, it could be they died prior to their baptism, etc.

AKJVReader brought to light the Biblical example of someone who was promised a place with Jesus but was never baptized.

We must also ask ourselves, what was the reason for the baptism of Jesus? Could it be His was sufficient for those who couldn't?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. This is the ordinary means of salvation. There are exceptions, like your example of a disabled person, or a deathbed conversion (the thief), but these are extraordinary.

If you don't hold that baptism saves, how would you interpret 1 Pt.?

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[dadof10]

The topic is baptism as necessary or unnecessary for salvation---not Bible versions.



I like referring to the Amplified because it gives the full spectrum of meaning for various words from the Greek. It is useful. I like it.

I have no preconceived bias, for the Lord Himself has taught me. He is Truth.




Feel free to disregard it. I overlook it as an anomaly. It doesn't threaten my understanding of the word of God.




Yes, but not baptism, which is a response to one's salvation.

I'm on my phone and I can't format properly. Ill try to take your points one at a time.

Re. Versions:
If you think the Amplified version is accurate, this is as much about versions as anything else. It'll come up again I'm pretty sure.

Re. The Lord Himself teaching you:
Could you please explain? You don't mean that your interpretations are infallible, do you?

Re. Baptism being a "response to one's salvation":
Chapter and verse please. If Scripture says baptism saves in one place and baptism is a response to one's faith NOWHERE, which is the more Biblical view?


Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[Alabaster]

Re. The Lord Himself teaching you:
Could you please explain? You don't mean that your interpretations are infallible, do you?

Where I am weak, He is strong. where I err in my understanding, if I listen, he will reveal to me the Truth. Holy Spirit is faithful to teach all of us if we submit to Him. He is infallible, and able to teach us all truth.

Psalm 25:5 NLT
Lead me by your truth and teach me,
for you are the God who saves me.
All day long I put my hope in you.

John 16:13 NLT
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.

Re. Baptism being a "response to one's salvation":
Chapter and verse please. If Scripture says baptism saves in one place and baptism is a response to one's faith NOWHERE, which is the more Biblical view?

Jesus said in Mark 16:16a NLT:
Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Belief and repentance comes first.

Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38 NLT

 

[dadof10]

Where I am weak, He is strong. where I err in my understanding, if I listen, he will reveal to me the Truth. Holy Spirit is faithful to teach all of us if we submit to Him. He is infallible, and able to teach us all truth.

Is the Holy Spirit responsible for your unscriptural views on baptism? If this is one of the doctrines that has been "revealed" to you, it's not the Holy Spirit doing the revealing, it's your own subjective mind.

Jesus said in Mark 16:16a NLT:
Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Belief and repentance comes first.

Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38 NLT

These verses are chronological in nature??? You are really reaching. Where does it say that "belief and repentance comes first"? These verses are teaching what is NECESSARY to be saved, and in no particular order.

"44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.†48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (Acts 10)


If Acts 2:38 is chronological, then the Holy Spirit forgot to wait for baptism before He came upon the Gentile believers in Acts 10.


Even if Scripture specifically said "belief and repentance come before baptism", this still wouldn't even come close to proving your point, which is "baptism, which is a response to one's salvation."



This is an UNSCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE, TAUGHT BY MEN. Scripture specifically says "baptism, which now saves you" and you refuse to believe it. This is the ordinary way that the merits of the resurrection are applied to a person, that's what "It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Christ..." means.

 

[cleanfreak]

Is the Holy Spirit responsible for your unscriptural views on baptism? If this is one of the doctrines that has been "revealed" to you, it's not the Holy Spirit doing the revealing, it's your own subjective mind.



These verses are chronological in nature??? You are really reaching. Where does it say that "belief and repentance comes first"? These verses are teaching what is NECESSARY to be saved, and in no particular order.

"44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.†48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (Acts 10)


If Acts 2:38 is chronological, then the Holy Spirit forgot to wait for baptism before He came upon the Gentile believers in Acts 10.


Even if Scripture specifically said "belief and repentance come before baptism", this still wouldn't even come close to proving your point, which is "baptism, which is a response to one's salvation."



This is an UNSCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE, TAUGHT BY MEN. Scripture specifically says "baptism, which now saves you" and you refuse to believe it. This is the ordinary way that the merits of the resurrection are applied to a person, that's what "It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Christ..." means.

hello dado

You make some very interesting points, but how do you explain John 3:16? No mention of baptism there, only a belief.

Very eager for your reply.

 

[dadof10]

hello dado

You make some very interesting points, but how do you explain John 3:16? No mention of baptism there, only a belief.

Very eager for your reply.

It means if a person believes in Christ he will have eternal life, just like the text says.

If taken in isolation, it could possibly mean (like Protestants want it to mean) that all one has to do is "accept Jesus" and you'll go directly to Heaven upon death, however, that's not all the Bible has to say about the subject of salvation.

I have never understood how, within Protestantism, the word "believe" came to mean "ONLY accept Jesus" . It wasn't that way at the beginning of the movement. Taking into consideration ALL Scripture has to say on the subject, Jesus must mean that baptism, keeping the commandments (Mt. 19:17), sacrifice (1 Tm. 2:15), etc. are incorporated WITHIN belief, and are necessary. We can't just pick out the verses that reinforce our tradition, we must look at ALL Scripture says on the subject and go from there.

OK. your turn. How do you interpret 1 Pt. 3:21? Waiting with baited breath for your reply.

 

[stovebolts]

When speaking of Baptism, it is dangerous to view Baptism as a line in the sand which divides those destine to hell, and those headed toward heaven.

Believing like all Christianity has historically believed is dangerous? How so?

The oldest writings on baptism that I'm aware of come from the Didache, and they only state how baptisms should be performed to which even the Orthodox don't adhere to. But more to my point, if we view baptism primarily as a line in the sand on who's saved, and who's going to hell, then it no longer is an expression of faith acting in love, but rather becomes a legalistic ritual, void of merit, and unacceptable to God. Remember, God desires mercy, not sacrifice...

I agree, and a very good point indeed.

As dangerous is to view Baptism as a rite which allows you to be a member of a particular denomination ( 1 Corinthians 1)

St. Paul also said that "there must be divisions among you" (1 Cor. 11:19).

Yes, Paul did state that there would be divisions among us... and he gives us an example in the 1st chapter of how baptism, which is supposed to bond us together, has been distorted to divide us. Why? It is as true today as it was in Paul's day. For you are baptised into the Orthodox church, while he is baptized into the Roman Catholic church, yet this one over here is baptized into the Baptist church and that one over there is baptized into (insert denomination here) church.

Simply put, we are not baptized into a denomination but rather, we are baptized into the Church of Christ. Think about this, why do so many churches not validate a baptism from another denomination? It's simple... it's because they don't view baptism as faith expresing itself through love as a response to the gospel, but rather, they look at it as a legalistic rite that is performed for entrance into 'their' church.

Too often the gospel is presented as if there is some kind of "essential checklist" that must be checked off and then "your in!" And, if something isn't necessary for salvation, then it isn't necessary at all. This really isn't the way to look at the gospel or our salvation

I agree, to an extent. That's why Orthodox Christians see salvation as a process where we always strive for salvation as opposed to Protestantism's "once saved always saved" idea.

All protestants don't buy into hyper calvinism... Just like the Orthodox church didn't buy into the Papacy of the Roman Catholic church nor the filoque. The RCC touts supremacy, thus the Orthodox.. aren't they also viewed as a type of Protestant? That is, protesting against Rome? Let's get real about this ok?