Is baptism required for salvation?

[Free]

This is what I mean Free

Post in thread 'JOHN MACARTHUR'

May 9, 2025

I don’t mean to intrude on this thread, but I just wanted to ask--are you saying that OSAS is a dividing factor among Christians, brother?

J.

A huge dividing factor.

It’s Heresy.

Please look up the meaning of the word Heresies.

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that...

• JLB

See the image--

Johann.

Oh, yeah, he just posted an image, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Paint. However, currently, only Supporters of the site can post images. This is due to the extra costs involved to have images stored on the servers.

 

[donadams]

Priest, Prophet and King of kings, Lord of lords---so we have "high priests and "low" priests now?-Lol!!

J.

how can there be a high priest unless he is in authority over lower priests in the same ministerial order and who offer the same sacrifice?

the royal priesthood of the faithful is another kind of priesthood

thks

 

[donadams]

You think?? Friend, brother, this is not exegesis but eisegesis-no offense!

Shalom.

J.

friend is good! thks

 

[Johann!@#]

Oh, yeah, he just posted an image, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Paint. However, currently, only Supporters of the site can post images. This is due to the extra costs involved to have images stored on the servers.

Appreciate the clarification, brother.

Johann.

 

[Johann!@#]

Oh, yeah, he just posted an image, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Paint. However, currently, only Supporters of the site can post images. This is due to the extra costs involved to have images stored on the servers.

Well, I clicked on the support button and here goes---There are currently no purchasable user upgrades.

But I love Canada Free--

Shalom, late here in South Africa 12.02 AM.

Johann.

 

[Randy]

Yes. Very harmful.

The child grows up thinking they have something that they don’t have; salvation

Salvation comes when a person believes the Gospel and therefore repents.

Only people who believe are to be baptized.


Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:35-37


An infant or little child does not have the capacity to believe.

They are innocent, not knowing good from evil.

So you think infant baptism would be a cause of unbelief when the child grows older and thus exists a state of no reconciliation. Well, the Lutheran church also has confirmation also be referred to as "affirmation of baptism", and is a mature and public reaffirmation of the faith.

Because Jesus stated:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

And its stated:
he who does not believe is condemned

 

[Randy]

That's a strawman argument. As I said, infant baptism is merely a rite of initiation, it doesn't save the infant from sin. It could be harmful, if baptism is perceived as a license to sin, you can do whatever you like with impunity just because you're baptized.

Where is it taught in those churches that baptize infants that it is a license to sin? Do you just invent reasons to disagree?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I have asked this and no one has yet been able to provide an answer.

Can you provide me an example of a "dry baptism", that is, one done without water?

The original 120 disciples from the upper room received the Holy Spirit without water. At the end of the day this is up to your definition of "baptism“. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a renewing of the mind, baptism with fire could be a fiery trial to hone your strength and character, baptism with water, though, as I said, is a rite of initiation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Where is it taught in those churches that baptize infants that it is a license to sin? Do you just invent reasons to disagree?

It could come from the churches that teach "hyper grace" heresy, it could also come from individuals who get this impression. And believe it or not, this heresy is not new, it's same the false teaching of the Nicolatians, that your body and spirit are separate, you can do whatever you like as long as you repent in your heart. If a parishioner is taught that they could buy indulgences or any equivalent from the church to absolve them from their sins, then their debt is paid and they're free to sin again, then that's a license to sin. Lord Jesus condemned this specifically in his letters to the Ephesus and Pergamus churches.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are conflating John's baptism with Christian baptism. John's baptism was not a sacrament and it did not confer grace nor imprint a character. This is why the Apostles administered Christian baptism to those who had been baptized by John.

Then why had the Samaritans not received the Holy Spirit, even though they were baptized in Jesus's name? A water baptism is a water baptism, no matter how you glamorize it.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Jn. 3:5) "Born of water" therein is specifically referring to natural birth from amniotic fluid in the uterus, not water baptism, because in that context, Nicodemus perceived "born again" as naturally born again, Jesus was responding to that by teaching him what "born again" really means and how it's different from natural birth.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)

 

[Walpole]

Then why had the Samaritans not received the Holy Spirit, even though they were baptized in Jesus's name? A water baptism is a water baptism, no matter how you glamorize it.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (Jn. 3:5) "Born of water" therein is specifically referring to natural birth from amniotic fluid in the uterus, not water baptism, because in that context, Nicodemus perceived "born again" as naturally born again, Jesus was responding to that by teaching him what "born again" really means and how it's different from natural birth.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)

A couple of observations. First, what St. Paul did was something distinct from baptism. Recall St. Paul said God did not call him to baptize. (cf. 1 Cor 1:17) Secondly, it is important to remember there is only one baptism. (cf. Eph 4:5) So what exactly did he do to the disciples at Ephesus who were already baptized into Christ?

The most ancient of Christian traditions answer this question. In baptism, the Holy Spirit is conferred in an invisible way. When an Apostle (and today, their successors) laid hands on someone already baptized, they were calling down the Holy Spirit in a visible and charismatic way. Thus from the beginning of Christianity, a distinction is made between baptism and the imposition of hands on a person and receiving the Holy Spirit in a more profound way. The most ancient of Christian traditions continue this practice to this day; for after a person is baptized, they are confirmed. It is thus demonstrably the regula fide of Christianity that from the beginning, there is a distinct and separate practice of baptism and confirmation.

Call it confirmation, Chrismation or whatever you want, Scripture is clear the laying on of hands is something separate and distinct from baptism. It is done post baptism. In addition to the verse referenced above from Acts, here is another verse describing it as something separate and distinct from baptism...

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1–2)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

A couple of observations. First, what St. Paul did was something distinct from baptism. Recall St. Paul said God did not call him to baptize. (cf. 1 Cor 1:17)

Then why did he baptize those individuals in the previous verses (1 Cor. 14-16)?

Secondly, it is important to remember there is only one baptism. (cf. Eph 4:5) So what exactly did he do to the disciples at Ephesus who were already baptized into Christ?

Preach the gospel to them, so they can receive the Holy Spirit and get saved.

The most ancient of Christian traditions answer this question. In baptism, the Holy Spirit is conferred in an invisible way. When an Apostle (and today, their successors) laid hands on someone already baptized, they were calling down the Holy Spirit in a visible and charismatic way. Thus from the beginning of Christianity, a distinction is made between baptism and the imposition of hands on a person and receiving the Holy Spirit in a more profound way. The most ancient of Christian traditions continue this practice to this day; for after a person is baptized, they are confirmed. It is thus demonstrably the regula fide of Christianity that from the beginning, there is a distinct and separate practice of baptism and confirmation.

Call it confirmation, Chrismation or whatever you want, Scripture is clear the laying on of hands is something separate and distinct from baptism. It is done post baptism. In addition to the verse referenced above from Acts, here is another verse describing it as something separate and distinct from baptism...

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1–2)

Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism, not after. Also, no mention of hand laying. If there's only one baptism,

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:44-48)

 

[JLB]

So you think infant baptism would be a cause of unbelief when the child grows older and thus exists a state of no reconciliation. Well, the Lutheran church also has confirmation also be referred to as "affirmation of baptism", and is a mature and public reaffirmation of the faith.

Because Jesus stated:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

And its stated:
he who does not believe is condemned

A child has no capacity to believe, and therefore have no need of baptism.

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” Acts 8:36-37

It’s when a child grows up and has the ability to understand and know right from wrong and therefore have the capacity to believe, then that’s the time for baptism.


If a child grows up believing they are already baptized and already saved, then that’s the time creates a stronghold in their mind that resists the knowledge of the truth, in which they believe they are already saved, and have no need to hear and believe.

This is what was occurring in Israel when John the Baptist and Jesus came on the scene with the Gospel.

The Jews, (elect) believe that they were chosen for salvation and were saved from birth because they were Abraham’s offspring and were “circumcised” as a child and were therefore saved already; being the natural children of Abraham.

This was the Cultural Stronghold of that day that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul dealt with in the Jews.


They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” John 8:33


Jesus had just told these adults the truth, and they responded with this answer. They “pushed back” against the knowledge of the truth, because they believed they were said and free.


Remember what Jesus had told them?

 

[Randy]

A child has no capacity to believe, and therefore have no need of baptism.

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” Acts 8:36-37

It’s when a child grows up and has the ability to understand and know right from wrong and therefore have the capacity to believe, then that’s the time for baptism.


If a child grows up believing they are already baptized and already saved, then that’s the time creates a stronghold in their mind that resists the knowledge of the truth, in which they believe they are already saved, and have no need to hear and believe.

This is what was occurring in Israel when John the Baptist and Jesus came on the scene with the Gospel.

The Jews, (elect) believe that they were chosen for salvation and were saved from birth because they were Abraham’s offspring and were “circumcised” as a child and were therefore saved already; being the natural children of Abraham.

This was the Cultural Stronghold of that day that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul dealt with in the Jews.


They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” John 8:33


Jesus had just told these adults the truth, and they responded with this answer. They “pushed back” against the knowledge of the truth, because they believed they were said and free.


Remember what Jesus had told them?

They, the Israelites, were slaves to sin as are all unless set free by Jesus.

Your making the assumption that an infant that undergoes baptizm by the will of Christan parents has no further instruction about the faith as they grow older. How then would they even know about Jesus and salvation? Your also making the assumption that the Lord is indifferent to that baptism and the prayers offered by the church as you suggest the baptism at that point is worthless.

The important part in my upbringing was my mother prayed with me and something took as I started to pray on my own to someone I believed in with certainty. "Jesus". I have never doubted. It's called FAITH. The Lord responded to my prayers and faith in Him.

Jesus=>He who believes in me will never die.

 

[Randy]

It could come from the churches that teach "hyper grace" heresy, it could also come from individuals who get this impression. And believe it or not, this heresy is not new, it's same the false teaching of the Nicolatians, that your body and spirit are separate, you can do whatever you like as long as you repent in your heart. If a parishioner is taught that they could buy indulgences or any equivalent from the church to absolve them from their sins, then their debt is paid and they're free to sin again, then that's a license to sin. Lord Jesus condemned this specifically in his letters to the Ephesus and Pergamus churches.

I doubt indulgences is tied to just infants getting baptized. What about adults?

To me if someone continues to sin after coming to the knowledge of the truth it suggests no reconciliation. There should be a noticeable difference in the way of life in one born of God and those in the world who don't belong to Christ. (grace through faith with the fruit of obedience not disobedience)

Infant baptism is not hyper grace theology.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Infant baptism is not hyper grace theology.

Nonetheless, it has no effect in salvation if baptism is not a conscious and informed decision.

 

[JLB]

Your making the assumption that an infant that undergoes baptizm by the will of Christan parents has no further instruction about the faith as they grow older.

I am making no assumption sir.

Do you honestly believe the Catholic Church is going to instruct these people in the doctrine of Christ?

Or are they going to continue instructing them is dogmas and rituals and teaching of Catholicism?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I am making no assumption sir.

Do you honestly believe the Catholic Church is going to instruct these people in the doctrine of Christ?

Or are they going to continue instructing them is dogmas and rituals and teaching of Catholicism?

"Doctrine of Christ" or "therapeutic moralistic deism", which is what most churches actually teach? You have to make a judgement call on that. Don't kill the messenger, but the thing is, lots of young chaps are joining the Catholic church, because to them, Catholic dogmas and rituals resemble "doctrine of Christ" more than what they get from modern Protestant and non-denomination churches, they are sick and tired of "therapeutic moralistic deism".

 

[JLB]

but the thing is, lots of young chaps are joining the Catholic church, because to them, Catholic dogmas and rituals resemble "doctrine of Christ" more than what they get from modern Protestant and non-denomination churches, they are sick and tired of "therapeutic moralistic deism".

I’m so sorry to say, but I have to agree with you.

This is sad.

 

[Johann!@#]

"Doctrine of Christ" or "therapeutic moralistic deism", which is what most churches actually teach? You have to make a judgement call on that. Don't kill the messenger, but the thing is, lots of young chaps are joining the Catholic church, because to them, Catholic dogmas and rituals resemble "doctrine of Christ" more than what they get from modern Protestant and non-denomination churches, they are sick and tired of "therapeutic moralistic deism".

The challenge, as I see it, is to discern between genuinely Christ-centered doctrine and practices that merely feel more structured or traditional.

Therapeutic, moral deism has become the norm-sad to say.

J.