Is baptism essential to salvation?

[WIP]

The problem is, he didn't make this clear and as a result he was confusing his audience and planting doubt and stumbling blocks. The question that was asked of him was, if I can remember it word for word, "When is it right to baptize?" This is when he responded the way he did and he went on to say it is never right to baptize. I couldn't disagree more that sentiment.

From what I have read WIP, I would get with my pastor teacher and ask Him if he would teach his Flock about Water baptism. You seem to have a bunch of believers that can be shaken very easily with Baptism.

Even you said that you haven't made up your mind yet. Your Pastor teacher should have fed his flock this information from the beginning. Then You would not have a bunch of believers shaken so easily with a guest speaker.

Your Quote~~I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

A Pastor teacher should of had this doctrine sealed up with His flock from the Get go.

I have been taught and rightly so, that water baptism has nothing to do with getting saved. One Guest speaker for an hour or so is not going to shake that belief.

I think this is a good idea. I know when I left the meeting last evening, this very thought was on my mind, that our pastor should address this to us. I do know that Les ended the meeting and stepped aside rather quickly and did not seem too interested in fielding any questions from his audience aside from those that were given him in writing earlier during a break. In retrospect, I don't think it would have been a good thing to engage him at that time anyway considering the the emotional state of some of my fellow congregation. Personally, I didn't take it that hard at all and felt I was being objective, listening to what he had to say, and allowing things to sink in before I form an opinion. This is partly what I am doing now. I want to dig more and seek guidance. The Holy Spirit will lead me.

Already there is a lot of information been brought forth in this thread and I appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[reba]

Time to walk out of a meeting... Better to stand and show support for the Gospel and the Word then not hurt some one feelings.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

As circumcision was a mark of the covenant between Israel and The Father, water baptism became the mark of the covenant betwen the called ones and Jesus. The ones who entered into this covenant through baptism were given the gift of Holy breath (the Holy Spirit) as a seal. This (the seal of Holy Breath) was either given miraculously from Jesus himself or by the laying on of the apostle's hands. Those of this covenant were called upon to repent from lifestyles of sin and to commit to righteousness and love for one another and were promised exceedingly great things as they awaited the return of Jesus which they expected to occur within their generation's lifetime.

 

[JLB]

As circumcision was a mark of the covenant between Israel and The Father, water baptism became the mark of the covenant betwen the called ones and Jesus. The ones who entered into this covenant through baptism were given the gift of Holy breath (the Holy Spirit) as a seal. This (the seal of Holy Breath) was either given miraculously from Jesus himself or by the laying on of the apostle's hands. Those of this covenant were called upon to repent from lifestyles of sin and to commit to righteousness and love for one another and were promised exceedingly great things as they awaited the return of Jesus which they expected to occur within their generation's lifetime.

Water Baptism does not guarantee the Holy Spirit.

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Acts 1:5

and again -

1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Acts 19:1-6

These Disciples were not Jews, but Gentiles from Ephesus.

Jesus instructed His Disciples to Make Disciples of all nations -

19 Go therefore http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/28.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-c and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Matthew 28:19-20


If Jesus submitted to John to be Baptized, how much more should we all do the same.


JLB

 

[Webb]

Water baptism when preceded by faith and repentance does certainly promise not only the remission of sins but the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:36-40.

 

[josefnospam]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again....

Baptism is unnecessary if you are planning on spending your entire Christian walk hung on a cross.

The thief on the cross was a recipient of God's grace...yes. He proves that all can come to know Christ, even in the last moments of a life given to crime.

But, most of us aren't going to come to know Christ in the last hour or so of life. It's comforting to know that we can be saved under such circumstances...but those are exceptions, to be sure. Most of us will spend many years here on this earth in faithfulness to Christ.

And for us...baptism is both necessary and commanded. We are commanded to be baptized (Acts 2:38) and commanded to baptize others (Matt 28:18-20).

The bible is very clear on the necessity of baptism for believers. Why point to the one example of God's grace for one in dire circumstances to excuse not obeying one of the Christian's few commandments?

Well said............................................

 

[stovebolts]

Water baptism when preceded by faith and repentance does certainly promise not only the remission of sins but the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:36-40.

Amen, and in my honest opinion, this is a far more important discussion than simply trying to water down baptism to a line in the sand.

 

[Classik]

Water baptism when preceded by faith and repentance does certainly promise not only the remission of sins but the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:36-40.

Amen, and in my honest opinion, this is a far more important discussion than simply trying to water down baptism to a line in the sand.

 

[Classik]

There is a thought, WIP. If the verse says: 'repent and be baptised, and some feel that baptism isn't necessary...what exactly is the grammartical function of the 'and' in that statement? If we argue that 'be baptised' is not necessary for us but was meant for the people of that time...don't we think that 'repent' also is not meant for us - but for the people of that time. We can't choose one and leave the other.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

grammatical function-good luck with the english language
it is some sort of participial
Mark 16:16;
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

Believing is Jesus is obviously followed by the desire to be baptized.
In that respect, they go together.
All believers get baptized.
It is a time that we show the world that we love Jesus.
Who gets born again but doesn't want or refuses to be baptized?
Believing gets you saved, baptism shows it.

 

[Classik]

Thank you for that. That is to say the baptisim thing is important - to those who have not been baptised yet.

 

[Butch5]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick.

In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation."
I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews.

What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise?

Thanks.

Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

Hi Wip,

Firstly I'd like to address your statement about Mark 16:16. You said,

"but he who does not believe will be condemned."Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned."

The argument that it doesn't say anything about not being baptized is what is known as an argument from silence. It is a logical fallacy. The reasoning is flawed in that argument. The first thing a person does towards being a Christian is to believe, everything else follows that. Therefore it isn't necessary to mention baptism in the second clause. If one does not believe they are already disqualified, whther they are baptized or not is irrelevant because they do not believe. There's simply no reason to mention baptism in te second clause because of lack of believe automatically disqulifies one regardless of baptism.

You also asked about baptizing Gentiles. In the Great Commission Jesus told the apostles to go the Gentiles and baptize them. Cornelius and his household were Gentiles as were the Philippiean Jailer and his family.

I've recently finished an artilce on Baptism and its necessity, you can find it on my website "That Which Was From the Beginning" just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you read the article I think it will answer your questions.

 

[Butch5]

The problem is, he didn't make this clear and as a result he was confusing his audience and planting doubt and stumbling blocks. The question that was asked of him was, if I can remember it word for word, "When is it right to baptize?" This is when he responded the way he did and he went on to say it is never right to baptize. I couldn't disagree more that sentiment.

From what I have read WIP, I would get with my pastor teacher and ask Him if he would teach his Flock about Water baptism. You seem to have a bunch of believers that can be shaken very easily with Baptism.

Even you said that you haven't made up your mind yet. Your Pastor teacher should have fed his flock this information from the beginning. Then You would not have a bunch of believers shaken so easily with a guest speaker.

Your Quote~~I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance.

A Pastor teacher should of had this doctrine sealed up with His flock from the Get go.

I have been taught and rightly so, that water baptism has nothing to do with getting saved. One Guest speaker for an hour or so is not going to shake that belief.

I think this is a good idea. I know when I left the meeting last evening, this very thought was on my mind, that our pastor should address this to us. I do know that Les ended the meeting and stepped aside rather quickly and did not seem too interested in fielding any questions from his audience aside from those that were given him in writing earlier during a break. In retrospect, I don't think it would have been a good thing to engage him at that time anyway considering the the emotional state of some of my fellow congregation. Personally, I didn't take it that hard at all and felt I was being objective, listening to what he had to say, and allowing things to sink in before I form an opinion. This is partly what I am doing now. I want to dig more and seek guidance. The Holy Spirit will lead me.

Already there is a lot of information been brought forth in this thread and I appreciate it. Thank you.

The question is did he back it up with Scripture? If not then I would consider it nothing more than an opinion. In my article I've given both Scriptural and historical evidence for the necessity of baptsim

 

[Classik]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here because last evening I attended a meeting at our church in which the keynote speaker said some things that most of us found hard to take/believe. One of the statements or doctrines he promoted was about baptism. The speaker was invited by a couple members of our church and now in retrospect many of us feel we need to do damage control. The speaker's name was Les Feldick. In his speaking he stated, "Baptism is not essential or necessary for salvation." I might be able to agree with this statement. Many who defend baptism often quote from Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved;" But the problem that I see in this is that they tend to leave off the rest of the verse where it says, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned. Other arguments in favor of baptism refer to Matthew 28:19 stating that Jesus commanded us to be baptized. The opposed argument, as presented by Mr Feldick, is that Jesus was talking to his disciples and not to gentiles. In fact, it is very difficult to find scripture that mentions baptism with regard to non-Jews. What really turned me away from Mr. Feldick however was the last statement he made. He was asked what his thoughts were about baptism and he said, "It is a waste of time and water." Yikes!!!! Now this I absolutely cannot agree with. I believe baptism is an important part of our Christian walk and growth but I am not sure I understand whether it is has salvific importance. I would like to explore this topic further. Does the Bible speak about baptizing non-Jews and does it tells us that baptism is required in order for one to be saved, Jew or otherwise? Thanks. Edit: Oh, I'm speaking about water baptism.

Hi Wip, Firstly I'd like to address your statement about Mark 16:16. You said, ""but he who does not believe will be condemned."Here it doesn't say anything about he who is not baptized will be condemned." The argument that it doesn't say anything about not being baptized is what is known as an argument from silence. It is a logical fallacy. The reasoning is flawed in that argument. The first thing a person does towards being a Christian is to believe, everything else follows that. Therefore it isn't necessary to mention baptism in the second clause. If one does not believe they are already disqualified, whther they are baptized or not is irrelevant because they do not believe. There's simply no reason to mention baptism in te second clause because of lack of believe automatically disqulifies one regardless of baptism. You also asked about baptizing Gentiles. In the Great Commission Jesus told the apostles to go the Gentiles and baptize them. Cornelius and his household were Gentiles as were the Philippiean Jailer and his family. I've recently finished an artilce on Baptism and its necessity, you can find it on my website "That Which Was From the Beginning" just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you read the article I think it will answer your questions.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Acts 10:44-46;

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God".

The Pentecostal baptism was extended to the Gentile believers on the sole ground of repentance and faith in Christ.
It follows that they should be baptized with water as a symbolic act that they have visibly passed from the realm of darkness to the Kingdom of God's beloved son.

 

[Butch5]

There is a thought, WIP. If the verse says: 'repent and be baptised, and some feel that baptism isn't necessary...what exactly is the grammartical function of the 'and' in that statement? If we argue that 'be baptised' is not necessary for us but was meant for the people of that time...don't we think that 'repent' also is not meant for us - but for the people of that time. We can't choose one and leave the other.

 

[farouk]

Acts 10:44-46;

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God".

The Pentecostal baptism was extended to the Gentile believers on the sole ground of repentance and faith in Christ.
It follows that they should be baptized with water as a symbolic act that they have visibly passed from the realm of darkness to the Kingdom of God's beloved son.

It was essentially a public testimony of what was already true inwardly and spiritually from the moment that they believed. The symbol of baptism did not make their regeneration happen: this is the serious error of baptismal regeneration.

 

[About the Son of God]

I would like to hear what people here think. I definitely say no, and am about to do a debate on it on another website. Let me use a simple syllogism. I of course will be using more proof in the actual debate, but for now I'll just use this. When the debate starts I might post some more arguments here. _______ P.1 Salvation was gained without baptism. Conclusion: Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If I am able to prove premise one, then I prove that baptism is not essential. Defense of first premise: P.1 The thief on the cross, next too Jesus went too heaven the night he died. P.2 The thief could not have been able to have been baptized as he repented on the cross, and died shortly after on the cross. Conclusion: If someone has gone too heaven without being baptized that means baptism is not essential to salvation. The thief went to heaven without being baptized therefore salvation was gained without baptism, and thus baptism is not essential to salvation.

I don't think it can be proven that anyone has been saved without baptism. (Unqualified word).
It may be possible to show that some are saved without water baptism (eg: Abraham.)
So, I think you might want to clarify your topic more in an actual debate setting.

The idea of baptism is to submerge or plunge under water, but it is also understood to mean to be overwhelmed or overpowered by something.
eg: Matthew 20:23, Luke 12:50 (And note Luke 12:50 represents that the cross itself is a baptism; eg: the theif is baptized with the same baptism as Jesus -- which is the REASON it is salvific; the water is found in the blood being shed, and yes -- it was live and running!.), etc.

Yet, there is a unity in all the baptisms which are salvific Ephesians 4:4-5. So much so, that Chirstians are taught to speak of only "one" baptism, much like we would speak of "one" God ; though there is a plurality of persons, in the latter and a plurality of forms in the former. 'pun not intended...

I'm sorry that I'm not more prepared for the topic, but I'm basically speaking to you before I have had a chance to thoroughly complete my own study of the question. So, I am going to bring up some general points which might at first sight seem weak; for I haven't had a chance to really organize what I've been learning; but they are related at a very deep level which I am just beginning to appreciate myself and which would have been far more apparent to a native speaker of Greek at the time of Christ who could tell when word usage was so out of place/against the norm -- that they wouldn't have inserted it into a lexicon as a definition for 20th century idiots; but would have started looking for the pun meaning of the sentence.

My knee jerk summary of Baptism is that it has the purpose of making us to be like Jesus, so that the Father may see Jesus in us. ("In" could also mean, in union with us). We are baptized into his *DEATH*. ( Romans 6:3-4 ).

Let's do a little historical (and incomplete) rewind, to trace the Jewish idea out just a little:

The Israelites were "baptised into Moses" in the cloud and the sea (Eg: notably WATER); which is curious if understood of getting "wet" for they crossed the sea on "dry land" or "dry shod" ; but that is how scripture speaks about the event seminal to Israel/promised land becoming the prototype of our redemption.

Let's look just a little at the prototype:
Moses specifically named a boy, taken from his father "nun", a new name; The name is Joshua (GK: Iesous) which is *identical* to the name Jesus -- and Moses did this so that Joshua (in lieu of Moses who sinned) would lead the people into the promised land through (ta-da) water.

Every teacher of Israel ( Nicodemous ) OUGHT to have known that, and to have known about the strong driving winds (spirit) causing the water to split, and the release of a bird in sin offering over running water, etc. Many allusions which perhaps escape us today -- but which Jesus points us toward when explaining baptism and saying that it is *NECESSARY* for salvation.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
And:
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Now: compare that with what WIP was questioning -- Mark 16:16

So, I'm' going to assert -- without detailed proof:
Baptism is necessary for salvation ; the question is why, and is the necessity true in every case -- or in just many peoples cases. (eg: Nicodemus' etc.)

Notably, When Joshua led the people through the Jordan, (the very water and perhaps even the place? John the Baptist baptized) they knew that the water came from a rock near Caserea Phiphi which is cleft open by the river; This miracle crossing is recorded in Joshua 3:13; for there, the miracle of the "sea" is repeated upon their entry. They follow the symbol of baptism in order to enter the promised land. ( 1Corinthians 10:2-4 )
And even the Jews who chose not to take their inheritance in the Land WERE required to cross over for battle in order to have any inheritance at all;

The tie ins between baptism and the spiritual food, spiritual drink, and the Rock, are not coincidences; Paul ties them all together -- and the more I study them, the more I realize they follow a prototype/antitype pattern which is stunningly coherent even in it's ability to explain otherwise patent etymological errors; eg: for one might accuse scripture of confounding the idea of a cleft, crevice, bend/depression in a rock (Kaf, Kefas in Hebrew) with the word for "Rock" itself (Petros) in Greek; an identification made important while standing at Caseria Philipi (Matthew 16:18, John 1:42 ) the VERY headwaters of the Jordan.

John 1:42 explicitly shows that it's not the word's literal meaning ( Cephas isn't exactly Rock ) which is important, but the interpretive *meaning* of the word (it's CONNOTATION not DENOTATION) to a Jewish mindset desperate for the promised messiah; and this interpretive background naturally goes back to the desert, manna, sea, Jordan, and especially the Spritual rock which the water "flowed from.". etc.

When Jesus asserts that Baptism is necessary, his places it on equal footing (nay, higher footing) than Circumcision (From the time of Moses) as the entry into the covenant.
Baptism replaces Circumcision; and the lack of either one is sufficient to exclude a person from the covenant it belongs to.

I expect to hear some argumentation based on Paul, regarding this point -- and I think if I am to engage in it, I'd prefer to do so in the forum which moderates debate more strictly (Focus on Scripture); There are many points which I need to work through myself, to understand more clearly, and a free for all debate setting will interfere -- although debate itself is a good way to look for errors.

If this interests you enough to hold a longer dialog, consider opening a fresh thread with restricted / more precise topic defined.

Blessings to you.
Your brother in Christ, Jesus; Andrew.

 

[Randy]

I would like to hear what people here think. I definitely say no, and am about to do a debate on it on another website.

Let me use a simple syllogism. I of course will be using more proof in the actual debate, but for now I'll just use this. When the debate starts I might post some more arguments here.

_______

P.1 Salvation was gained without baptism.

Conclusion: Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

If I am able to prove premise one, then I prove that baptism is not essential.


Defense of first premise:

P.1 The thief on the cross, next too Jesus went too heaven the night he died.

P.2 The thief could not have been able to have been baptized as he repented on the cross, and died shortly after on the cross.

Conclusion: If someone has gone too heaven without being baptized that means baptism is not essential to salvation. The thief went to heaven without being baptized therefore salvation was gained without baptism, and thus baptism is not essential to salvation.

The man on the cross next to Jesus was saved by his faith in Jesus.

The key is faith IN JESUS. I was baptized as an infant (Lutheran). My witness is that I went to Jesus by my faith in Jesus later in life and asked for and received the good gift as Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit. John the baptizer testified that Jesus baptized by the HS even before the 12 knew of such a thing. (How God writes the New Covenant on our Hearts)

Jesus stated to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit but those being baptized had to be making a faith statement in Jesus and as we read the good gift was poured out with their baptism. Paul had authority to lay his hands on people to impart the Holy Spirit. The sign of salvation is Christ in Us. I think in this day most have already given their pledge to Jesus before water baptism and therefore have already received eternal life by their calling on the Lord. (a sincere faith in Jesus)

 

[Randy]

Who touched me? The Father had mercy on this women as the HS acts on the Will of God. This women had great faith.
45 “Who touched me?†Jesus asked.

When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.â€

46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.â€

47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. 48 Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.â€