1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is Baptism required for Salvation?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by God's Word is TRUTH, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say that had the penitent thief been granted clemency and removed from his cross, he would have gone immediately to John (who was standing right there), and asked right away what he needed to do become a disciple of Christ. And I think we all know how John would have responded, especially since he was that very evangelist who wrote the no man could enter the Kingdom of God without baptism of both water and spirit. If the penitent thief had not been so inclined, then Jesus — who knew the hearts of men — would probably not have promised him admission into Paradise.

    I found this quote off the web:
    .
     
  2. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll answer with a question.

    Lets' say a set twins get separated at birth.

    One accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior upon reaching the age of reasoning and leads a full christian life.

    The other leads the life of a Sinner.

    Both die on the same day, but the sinner on his death bed repents and asks Jesus to forgive him.

    Both go to heaven.
     
  3. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Earlier quote was a little bit out-there.

    For starters although Jesus had spoken of baptism by water and the spirit, he hadn't yet finished teaching the apostles, nor had he given them the Trinitarian formula, nor had he commanded them to baptise. Neither, as I said, had Jesus baptised anyone with water himself.

    We can't be sure therefore that John would have known, as we know now, and as he knew decades later when he was writing the Gospel, the significance of baptism with water, or what he would have said.

    As I originally said, spirit alone was good enough for the Apostles themselves, since they had Christ himself with them, and it probably would have been good enough for the good thief as well.
     
  4. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    so...this seems to work against your assertion that baptism is required for salvation.
     
  5. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    no not really. You should read the earlier posts.

    Should I invoke some the quotes of the Early Christians?
     
  6. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    But then again you missed the point of my question.
     
  7. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    In fact...I appeared to have missed the entire question. I think you forgot to ask it...

    BTW...the quote about the rain..."serving" as a baptism for the thief...

    We have no record of it raining at that time. The sky got dark. Nothing is said about rain.

    And for someone who would insist on baptism (immersive)..."sprinkling" probably wouldn't suffice in their view..
     
  8. Lagardo

    Lagardo New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    And where exactly did John say that someone could not enter the Kingdom of God without the baptism of both water and spirit? If you are thinking of John 3, then you are way off.

    I see that you use a doctrine of "baptism by desire." This is not a biblical doctine. It is not taught anywhere in scripture.
     
  9. Lagardo

    Lagardo New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    John never wrote anything about being baptized by water and spirit. In fact the only thing John wrote concerning baptism was about John the Baptist.

    I suspect maybe you are looking at John 3:5 with reads:

    “Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5, NKJV.

    "born of water" is not the same thing as baptism. Jesus is answering Nicodemus's question about being born again. Jesus refers to the natural birth (born of water being an expression for natural birth) and the second birth. This verse does not refer to baptism in any way, I cannot find anything written by John that comes close to what you have said about being baptized in water and in spirit. If you are referring to another verse, please elaborate.
     
  10. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with the earlier post about "born of water" referring to natural birth. The ancient Hebrews used terms such as "drop" and "water" to describe natural birth (in Jack W. Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Study Bible, page 1577).

    I believe that at John 3:3-6 "born of water" refers to natural birth because Hebrew terminology linked water and natural birth. At John 3:3, Jesus requires one to be "born anew." The meaning is apparent from the following passage unversified as it was originally:
    "Except ye be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
    That which is born of the
    flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (ASV) -- John 3:5-6.

    Evident from passage:
    born of water = natural birth of flesh <--matching ancient Hebrew terminology already discussed
    born of Spirit = spiritual birth.
     
    #30 Darron Steele, Jul 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2006
  11. genesis12

    genesis12 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    No. Let's see......... 1 2 3 4 ...... million ...... zillion ...... ummm, yes, that's how many times this question has been raised and answered.
     
  12. MorganT

    MorganT New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the members of the Church of Chirst on this board would spend just half as much time trying to reach the lost as they do trying to convense the saved so that they can boast maybe a few souls would be saved. Why dont you take your eye off of the Church and place it on Jesus Christ. The church hasnt saved anything only thru Jesus Christ and his Grace are you saved. Its not about what a denomination believes its about faith and faith alone. This CoC argument and starting new threads based on there belief system is getting real old. Focus on your savior Jesus Christ not on laws because his grace overrides the law.
     
  13. mman

    mman New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0



    So, you only want people on this board that agree with you? People shouldn't start new threads based on their belief system? What if they agree with what you already believe? Not much debate.


    Furthermore, your agrument against baptism is without substance
    .

    Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned".


    Let me ask you a question. Did Jesus mean what He said, or did He mean something else?


    As far as the argument you listed from 1st Corinthians, lets dig a little deeper.

    Were the Corinthians baptized? Let's read Acts 18:8, "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized."

    Did Paul baptize any of them? Yes, a few.

    Is there any indication that any of the believers were NOT baptized? NONE!!!!

    They were baptized, but Paul didn't do very much of the baptizing and he was glad. Why? Because Paul and the Corinthians understood the importance of baptism. In order to belong to Christ, He would have to die for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. In order for you to belong to Paul, he would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in his name.

    Let's read it in context.

    I Cor 1:12-17 "What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

    The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (J.H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 94).

    Paul was glad that he had not administered the rite of baptism so that no one may say that they were baptized in his name.

    Note, Paul did not say that he was glad that they were not baptized, because that had all been baptized. That alone defeats your entire argument.

    Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel which he did as seen in Acts 18:8. The people who believed his message were baptized, therefore his gospel message contained instructions for baptism.

    We obey the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15) in baptism according to Rom 6:3-4, 17.

    If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?

    Can you imagine trying to "baptize" someone who had no idea what baptism was? Yet all the Corinthians that believed, were baptized as we already read from Acts 18.

    If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message", was Jesus confused when He said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."? If baptism wasn't important to the gospel message then neither would "belief" be.

    Belief and baptism are always the proper response to the preaching of the gospel (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 18:8, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 8:5,12,35-38, 16:30-34), but not according to you.


    Since baptism puts one “into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27), Paul is not going to suggest that baptism is no part of the gospel!
     
  14. mman

    mman New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, the thief lived and died under the old law. Baptism was not a requirement under the old law. The new law could not go into effect until after the death of Jesus (Heb 9:16-17, "For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."

    Jesus commission to go preach the gospel to all nations and those who believe and are baptized will be saved is given after the thief was dead!

    Elijah was not "baptized" either, but that is just as invalid as using the thief as justification for not being baptized.

    If you really want to understand the purpose of baptism look at the passages that deal with it.

    Acts 2:38 baptism is for the remission of sins (the same Greek phrase is used in Matt 26:28 and I have no doubt you can understand the meaning of that passage)

    Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized will be saved

    Acts 22:16 - be baptized and wash away your sins

    I Pet 3:21 - baptism now saves us

    Rom 6:3-4 - baptized INTO Christ

    Gal 3:27 - baptized INTO Christ

    You can not find another way to get INTO Christ. Salvation is only found in Christ (II Tim 2:10)

    Grace is found in Christ - II Tim 2:1

    All spritual blessings are in Christ - Eph 1:3

    Redemption is found in Christ - Eph 1:7

    Use the scriptures and show me another way to get INTO Christ. Even if you could find another passage, it would only compliment Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 since both of these deal directly with the matter.
     
  15. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Born again in verse 3 equals born of water and of the Spirit of verse 5

    Nicodemus was just like you in thinking that "born of water = natural birth of flesh " so he asks a question.
    If Jesus actually meant born of water = natural birth of flesh Jesus would have affirmed this to Nicodemus and would have said so, but we that is not the case, instead renders one of his "VERILY VERILY" puts him straight. So Jesus is not talking about about natural birth of flesh, he is talking about the baptism of water that he underwent earlier.
    Then he renders verse 6

    Of the 4 verses Jesus makes 3 distinctions of "BORN OF"

    born of water (verse 5)
    born of spirit (verse 5 and 6)
    born of flesh (verse 6 )

    born of water does not equal born of flesh because he places a severe distinction between flesh and spirit in verse 6 to make Nicodemus unstand that he is not talking about being born again from the womb.

    God bless and go live the Gospel.
     
  16. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would Jesus even say it if it meant natural birth? When is being born ever used as a condition for something? "You must be born a natural birth and have a SAT score of 1200 or better to get into Podunk U." "You must be born a natural birth and be over 48 inches tall to go on the Screeming Mimi ride." I mean, who in the audience is going to hear "you must be born a natural birth and born of the spirit" and think "darn, I wasn't born a natural birth! I better go take care of that now"?

    That understanding just doesn't make any sense.
     
  17. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Born Again Refers to Baptism

    The phrase “born again” is one that has become very popular in Christianity over the past several decades. So great an emphasis has been put on the term that it has become the name taken by a rather large number of Christians; these people are called ‘Born Again Christians.’ The phrase has, of course, always been a meaningful term to Christians. Today as in the past it is clear that all Christians are born-again. It is a requirement for being a Christian, as Christ said, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) This raises the question of, given that all Christians are by necessity born again, why some Christians specifically hold the name of born-again. The answer is one of emphasis. To these believers, Christianity is nothing more or less than the faith of the born again, and the born again become that way by accepting Christ as Lord and savior. To be called born-again is to emphasize the reliance of the believer upon Christ and to emphasize the believer’s having been born again through this acceptance of Christ. The emphasis and understanding of the term has also become an extremely prominent aspect of Evangelicalism. So important is the matter of being born-again to Evangelicals that asking “have you been born again?” is a primary factor in matters of evangelization for these believers.

    These Christians are quite right in stressing the necessity of being born again. It is, as Christ said, absolutely necessary. As is so often the case with hereitc theology, the Christian disagreement here is not one of emphasis, but rather of understanding. It is the means by which it is understood by Evangelicals that one is born again that Catholics disagree with. Jesus teaches the necessity of being born-again for salvation, and Christians are born again, because according to the Scriptures, people are born again in baptism. There are only 3 places where the term occurs in Scripture. The first is John chapter 3:


    ”Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”(3:3-7)




    However, some have interpreted Jesus’ mention of water to refer to other things. One interpretation points to amniotic fluid. According to this interpretation, Jesus’ words mean that a person must be born once of his or her mother, that is to say biologically (hence the amniotic fluid), and again through the Spirit in order to enter Heaven. However, such an interpretation is completely without Scriptural support; there is no exegetical reason to identify amniotic fluid, and the context contains no indication that amniotic fluid is intended here. Aside from this is the fact that amniotic fluid is really a rather insignificant aspect of birth. It is certainly one of the last things most people would mention in reference to a birth. If Jesus wanted to say that one must be born once biologically and then again from the Spirit, it would have been far clearer and certainly much more in line with the context to say something such as, ‘born of the womb and the Spirit,’ or, ‘born of flesh and the Spirit.’ In fact, these readings make so much sense that the suggestion that Jesus meant this in saying “water and the Spirit” seems at best extremely unlikely by comparison.

    Even the grammar of the sentence opposes the interpretation of amniotic fluid, because the verse reads “born of water and the Spirit.” In Greek, the word for ‘of,’ ex, is used to mean both ‘of’ and ‘from’. The water being spoken of here is the source or cause of the person’s birth. People are born from their mothers; they are not born from amniotic fluid. The fluid isn't what gives birth to them, their mother is. Jesus teaches, however, that the water of baptism actually causes the rebirth, and the Spirit actually causes and gives rebirth. It is from the water and from the Spirit that a person is born again, according to John 3:5. This fact is also important to consider in the various other interpretations of this verse that have been suggested in opposition to the Jesus' teaching that John 3:5 refers to baptism.

    Furthermore, while the context does not contain a reason to understand amniotic fluid to be the water of John 3:5, it does explicitly provide reason to understand it to refer to baptism. When Nicodemus asks about being born again, Jesus presents a short monologue, which lasts from verses 10-21. The entire monologue is one; it does not take place on multiple occasions. The moment that Christ finishes this monologue, the very next thing He does is to start baptizing in verse 22. Then, in verse 23, the gospel mentions John the Baptist baptizing. This does not all occur at some later time, or in some unrelated portion of John’s gospel or the chapter. Rather, it takes place immediately after Christ finishes discussing being born again and about God sending His Son for the purpose of bringing eternal life to people. Within the very same context, John records Jesus’ mention of being born-again, His mention of the Son brining eternal life, and His record of Christ and John the Baptist baptizing. The three items are connected.

    The only other time the phrase born again occurs is in the 1st letter of Peter. He writes:


    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,(1:3)

    This teaching is that people are born again through the resurrection. Paul writes of salvation through the resurrection as well, and he links is directly to baptism:


    Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.(Rom 6:3-5)


    In Colossians 2:12, he echoes the same idea, writing that Christians have been“buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” It is through baptism that people die with Christ and are raised again. Being born-again occurs through His resurrection, and according to Paul, men are brought into that Resurrection by baptism.

    Finally Peter says “born again” one last time in his letter:


    Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;(1 Peter 1:22-23)



    Here is where the Evangelical understanding of being born again is most closely taught in Scripture. People are indeed born again through the word of God. However, this does not discount baptism. In fact, the very words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," are regarded by Jesus to be necessary for baptism to take place; the water is called the ‘matter’ of baptism and the words the ‘form.’ Without either, baptism cannot occur. This is another case in which the Christian Church accepts the entirety of Scriptural teaching on a point whereas some seem to acknowledge only part. John 3:5 and 1 Peter 1:3 teach that being born again occurs through baptism, whereas 1 Peter 1:22-23 teach that it occurs through the word of God.
     
  18. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are going to need more than an Evangelical study Bible to prove the claim that Hebrew terminology means what he says it means. People think that just because something gets published that means it must be true. T'ain't so!
     
  19. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why on earth did Jesus go get himself baptised if 'water' wasn't meant to refer to the water of baptism? [​IMG] After all, he was presumably born naturally as well.

    He commanded the Apostles to do it, with his last earthly words. They did it to all recorded converts after Pentecost. What more do you need?
     
  20. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/...ber/013331.html contains a brief explanation that this may not be an idiom, in fact, referring to birth.

    I did some other poking around on the internet. I found another sites that was contrasting different views of the verse and said that there is no Jewish precedent for the interpretation of the water referring to physical birth.

    At the bare minimum, I would say that if this truly was a Hebrew understanding, it was a very rare one, would be extremely unlikely for Jesus to have used, and would hardly be something to base an interpretation of a Scripture off of. Imagine Jesus came today, and to teach something he used the well known catch phrase from Star Trek, "Beam me up, Scotty." this study Bible, is imagining the reference of Jesus to be one like that. What it would actually seem to be would be more like if Jesus came today and used some catch phrase from Family Dog a show that maybe myself and 2 other people in the world remember.
     
Loading...