Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

In the Sermon on the Mount, did Jesus teach anything about His followers (the Christians) about baptism?

 

I have a question for those who are Covenant theologist. If baptism replaces circumsision of the Old Covenant for membership into the community why then must we have a "believers baptisim" Cirucmsision was for 8 day old infants as an entry into Isreal under the old covenant. It seems to me a difficult explination for coventant theologist. It would not be problematic however for dispensationalist.

 

I the Orthodox Church we baptize infants in much the same sense as OT Circumcision. A few Protestant denominations frown upon this b/c of the theory that one must “know” why he or she is being baptized. But do we ban our infants from our dinner table, b/c they don’t “know” what it means to be a part of a family and until they “understand” they will not eat at the family table?

We Orthodox don’t baptize our infants b/c of the reasons a Roman Catholic baptizes their infants, since we don’t adhere to original sin, we don’t believe that the guilt of Adam’s sin is passed on to us.

In XC
-

 

It is false.

End of story.

 

In covenant theology a child is baptized as a covenant promise to raise that child in the nurture of the Lord Jesus. The time of conversion comes later when the child understands. Warning: some believe it removes original sin and is a step toward membership in the church.

We Baptists do not sprinkle infants, but many do dedicate the children to the Lord and the parents dedicate themselves to raise the child in the Lord.

Circumcision was also a covenant promise, a step of obedience. The means of salvation did not change from beginning to end. The Old Covenant looked forward to the cross, and the New Covenant looked directly to the cross. To-day we look back to the cross...nothing changed!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Covenant or 'household' baptism is kind of within Anglican tradition as well, particularly of the more Reformed end of the Anglican spectrum, the idea being that the infant is incorporated within the covenant promise of the saved parents (per I Cor 7) until such time when either s/he make a faith decision for themselves or leaves the authority or headship ('covering') of the family home. It's certainly what a close friend of mine, who until recently was a curate at our church and is now a vicar in south London, believes.

 

Does you denomination have closed communion? If so, since closed communion mindsets link the particular type of baptism with the Lord's Supper, why can't infants take communion? They have been baptized.

 

How do you Orthodox explain Rom. 5:12-21?

 

Agnus Dei,
Explain to me, if you don't mind, how the sacraments work for Orthodox. I know the Catholics say that they do what they represent. How do the Orthodox view that with regards to baptism.

 

You mean "souf" (or would it be "souph") London right?

 

"Sarf" (or so I'm told by my wife who is from those parts)!

 

I think you'll find that the Orthodox do admit baptisted infants to Communion.

 

I have to get to you later...my family and i have closed on a house and have been moving for three days now..., but the Orthodox Sacramental theology is different than the Roman Catholics...

In XC

 

Yes Jim -- good description of a reformed view.

Funny thing. Friends of ours (who are Presbyterian) have been visiting a Baptist church. The saw a baby dedication the other day & had no idea of what it was. They had never seen this. In fact, they thought that Baptists were baptizing without water. :laugh:

 

Tali,

Spirit baptism? Absolutely. Spirit baptism occures at the monent of saving faith.

Water Baptism? No.

Water baptism should take place after being born again, as a "picture" of the new birth that has already taken place.

''

Its false.

After Cornlieus and the others were born again (Acts 10), Peter said...

I dont know how God could make it any clearer.

:godisgood:

 

Agnus Dei,

Paul rebuked Peter to his face, because he was being a hypocrit and he needed to be rebuked.

You have just (by saying faith working through love), very subtlely proclaimed a false gospel.

Here is the truth...

Living out our christian life, yes. But being justified in Gods eyes and secured for heaven, no. We are saved eternally, at a monent in time, forever. And it is permanent. False religious systems deny this truth, but it is still true.

True.

True, but that has absolutely nothing to do with our eternal destiny, only how our life will go...generally...here on earth.

We are already saved for that. Its a guarentee.


:godisgood:

 

Here's the official Anglican position on baptism and what it 'does':

"Article XXVII (of the Thirty-nine Articles)
Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeablewith the institution of Christ."

More can be found in the Prayer Book liturgy of baptism

 

Baptism is a public profession, of your faith in Jesus. It is not a requirement! of salvation. However; I think no one who has been saved, should refuse to be Baptised. That would send a red flag up to me.

To those who think it is a requirement, go study your Bible with your eyes open. You will find water baptism, is not! what the Lord was referring to. The doctrines of men, and their commandments, have done much damage to the body of Christ. But is still prevails, even against the gates of hell.