I do not believe baptism is essential for salvation

[Damo73]

I do not believe baptism is essential for salvation and i do not believe the bible says it is,yes i am aware of what Peter said but when taken in to context with the rest of the Bible i dont think this is what Peter was saying.I belonged to the coC for many years and they taught that it was, i did not agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

I posted this in another forum but i thought i would post it here because i know there are some very learned catholics i am sure will answer.

“and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household,” (Acts 16:30-33, NASB).

If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, “Believe and be baptized and you will be saved.” But, he did not,consider 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. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ 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” (NIV).

These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don’t praise God. They can’t because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn’t an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying?

“3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,”

The phrase “baptized into” occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB…
Rom. 6:3, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?”
2.

1 Cor. 10:2, “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”
3.

1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
4.

Gal. 3:27, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

To be baptized “into Christ,” “into His death,” “into Moses,” and “into one body” is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself, but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection which is said to be the gospel that saves in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism, then is a public statement proclaiming that the person is trusting in the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[LilyM]

Forget what Peter said and what the apostles did - what about the fact that Christ himself chose to be baptised with water by John as an example to us? Are you saying that it was unnecessary for him to do this? He never did anything unnecessarily.

How is water baptism not necessary if the son of God himself found it to be necesary? And why did he tell Nicodemus ‘no-one can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born of water AND the Spirit?’ (John 3:5) Clearly two separate things are required here.

And remember that John said to Jesus ‘you should be baptising me!’ Now by any standards John was the greatest of all God’s prophets apart from Jesus - ALREADY baptised in the fullest possible measure with the Holy Spirit right from the time of his leaping in Elizabeth’s womb - was he not? What was this ‘extra’ baptism that he needed and why, if not because baptism with water was ALSO necessary? In fact why was John baptising with water at all if this wasn’t necessary for salvation?

And didn’t Jesus himself command the apostles to baptise the whole world just before he ascended into Heaven? Why is the fact that they understood this to mean baptism by water not good enough for you if it was for them? Do you dare to presume that you have some extra or better knowledge or understanding that they didn’t??

 

[Damo73]

I am not saying that you should not be baptised, Jesus said to be baptised, so everyone who is a christian should be baptised, why would you disobey God?

Jesus being baptised is an example to follow, he had no sins to be washed away and he was never in any doubt of returning to heaven.

When people are baptised they are identifying them self as a believer in a public way.

 

[Damo73]

salvation is by excepting the sacrifice of Jesus.

And the sign of being born of the Holyspirit according to acts is ?

Do you have this sign?

 

[Damo73]

I thought i would make the point, that i am saying once you except that free gift of Christ, you should obviously submit to the will of God and obey him, as this is the sign of your faith.baptism and communion are done in obediance, it is Christ’s sacriffice that saves.

 

[Tietjen]

And the sign of being born of the Holyspirit according to acts is ?

Do you have this sign?

Are you talking about Acts 2:38 where Peter says to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins? I think that 1 Peter 3:21 makes this issue pretty absolute, thus ending any further disagreement on the subject. Mark 16:16 also shows that baptism is an ingredient needed for salvation. As was already pointed out to you earlier, John 3:5 says that unless one is born of water and Spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Acts 22:16 shows us St. Paul instructing that one should be baptized to have sins removed (washed away).

 

[Tietjen]

I thought i would make the point, that i am saying once you except that free gift of Christ, you should obviously submit to the will of God and obey him, as this is the sign of your faith.baptism and communion are done in obediance, it is Christ’s sacriffice that saves.

You seem to be saying that baptism and now Holy Communion are only symbolic. Sorry, the Bible says otherwise. The Church says otherwise. 2000 years of Christianity says otherwise. I understand that over the last 500 years since the reformation and the beginning of Protestantism that there are many who believe as you do. However, I’m sticking with the “originals” here. The original Church, the original Bible, the original understanding on this subject. If it was good enough for Christ, His Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, it’s certainly good enough for me.

 

[jemfinch]

If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, “Believe and be baptized and you will be saved.” But, he did not,consider Acts 10:44-46.

But when our Lord Jesus Christ says that exact thing, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved,” you don’t believe him?

You’re picking and choosing your interpretation of Scripture. This is your fatal flaw. Did Paul contradict Christ? Or could it be that he wasn’t declaring a theological rule to the Philippian jailer? Or maybe Paul started with a summary, and then, as he continued speaking (as the passage records that he did), he emphasized the necessity and importance of Baptism in salvation, and so the Philippian jailer was baptized right then and there.

Please, read the long (four page) thread we just had on this topic with that walking contradiction ‘bibleapologist’ to see all the arguments in favor of the Catholic understanding of baptism. It’s titled “Baptism…and the True Church” and should be on page 2 or 3 of this forum (since bibleapologist didn’t see fit to respond to the arguments presented against his).

Jeremy

 

[dal11]

To me it always comes down to this. If me and you can’t agree on what a bible passage means. Shouldn’t we abide by what the people who gave us the bible in the first place says about it. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[JohnWilliams]

I thought i would make the point, that i am saying once you except that free gift of Christ, you should obviously submit to the will of God and obey him, as this is the sign of your faith.baptism and communion are done in obediance, it is Christ’s sacriffice that saves.

I would tend to agree with you in that I also believe that if a person has a true circumcision of the heart and is repentant, they will not go to Hell purely because they hadn’t yet gotten around to being baptized. If we were to believe they do then it would seem we would have to conclude that we are saved through acts of the flesh, rather than by the condition of our hearts.

We can throw around a lot of verses and various circumstances but a couple of important ones come to mind:

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So as we love our God we do get baptized. When a person knows they should be baptized I believe they should perhaps proceed post haste and not be slovenly because of verses such as:

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.

While I was baptized as an infant, I do not believe I was born-again until I was chosen a few years ago. Since there are few if any verses in scripture that can be stretched to indicate infant baptism (the verse a couple of posts back perhaps being one of a few that can make this stretch), we find it is generally a conscious decision on the part of the one being baptized, so I was baptized in the Atlantic Ocean with my Church after I was saved a few years ago.

But then I also believe it was a circumcision of the heart that saved Old Testament Jews and not animal sacrifice. They were “born again”. I believe God loved them for obeying, but I don’t believe it was the law that assured their salvation. I also believe that for those Jews from whom God hasn’t lifted the “spirit of slumber” perhaps even today, but have a true circumcision of the heart, that they may be saved as per Romans 11.

 

[Verita]

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

To me this sounds as explicit as “Thou shalt not kill.”

Refraining from killing isn’t something you should do, it’s something you have to do. Likewise this statement of Jesus is something we have to do, not something we should do. You “cannot enter the kingdom” unless you do. That doesn’t sound optional to me.

 

[Fidelis]

…yes i am aware of what Peter said but when taken in to context with the rest of the Bible i dont think this is what Peter was saying.

I think your whole problem is that you are starting with a faulty premise. You are not simply placing 1 Peter 3:21 in context, as you say, but you are completly discounting it. The passage still must be dealt with on it’s own merits and in it’s own context as it appears in Peter’s epistle.What else could it mean besides it’s plain sense?

As far as Christ being baptized as an example, and commanding us to do it, but not being a requirement, that woukd reduce Christ’s statement to a command to us to perform an empty ritual that was just for outward show. Where else does Christ command us to do such a thing?

 

[mercygate]

Damo73 is not entirely wrong to suggest that baptism is not absolutely necessary.

There are some rare exceptions to the rule of water baptism. The Catholic Church teaches that one may receive the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

That said, Jesus does require baptism as the mechanism for the removal of original sin for us who are not prevented by unavoidable circumstances from receiving this grace-giving sacrament.

 

[Church_Militant]

Isn’t the phrase the church uses…“the normative way…”

If it’s optional then why is it talked about so much in the New Testament? It’s even compared to circumcision in the OT and THAT was necessary for salvation by the very command of God.

If you are coming from the position that it is a “work” and that our works have no merit with God and no part to play in our salvation, then you have failed to accept that the New Testament literally says that it is necessary for salvation in many places and that it also says that what we do does indeed have a bearing on our final end.

Keep studying Damo73.
Pax tecum,

 

[kepha444]

I do not believe baptism is essential for salvation and i do not believe the bible says it is,yes i am aware of what Peter said but when taken in to context with the rest of the Bible i dont think this is what Peter was saying.I belonged to the coC for many years and they taught that it was, i did not agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

I posted this in another forum but i thought i would post it here because i know there are some very learned catholics i am sure will answer.

“and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household,” (Acts 16:30-33, NASB).

If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, “Believe and be baptized and you will be saved.” But, he did not,consider 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. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ 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” (NIV).

These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don’t praise God. They can’t because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn’t an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying?

“3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,”

The phrase “baptized into” occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB…
Rom. 6:3, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?”
2.

1 Cor. 10:2, “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”
3.

1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
4.

Gal. 3:27, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

To be baptized “into Christ,” “into His death,” “into Moses,” and “into one body” is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself, but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection which is said to be the gospel that saves in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism, then is a public statement proclaiming that the person is trusting in the sacrifice of Christ.

Damo, do ya really want to take that chance????What if Jesus words im Matt.at the great commision are for real. What then? Were you baptized as a baby? What religion are you???

 

[John_Henry]

i am aware of what Peter said but when taken in to context…i dont think this is what Peter was saying.

To be clear, what he says is that “baptism…saves you”. So, by placing it in context, your conclusion is that baptism doesn’t save you. That’s not contextualizing a verse. It’s completely neutralizing it and ignoring it.

I belonged to the coC for many years and they taught that it was, i did not agree with it then and i dont agree with it now.

Me too. Though not the heretical one, but the cultic and heretical one. And only for a short period of time. I also didn’t agree with them on baptism, and that was one reason I eventually left them. But on this point, I would agree with them now.

…If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, “Believe and be baptized and you will be saved.”

But that is obviously not all that Paul said. He also said:

Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

And Peter, in the same book, says:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And in his epistles, Paul says:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

No reason to think that by “baptized” he didn’t mean “baptized” other than a priori assumptions.

And he says:

you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

and:

he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit

No reason to think that by “washed” he doesn’t mean the same washing he refers to in Acts 22, quoted above.

consider Acts 10:44-46.

Indeed that’s a tough verse for Catholics. But no tougher than Acts 8:16-17 for your view.

…These people were saved. …This isn’t an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

This really is your best argument. But is it not an exception? You seem to interpret the rest of the verses on baptism according to this one passage. But that’s not contextualization. You’re just finding justification for your views in one verse, and then saying the other verses MUST mean something other than what they say. In Acts 8, you will see that people received the Holy Spirit after they believed and were baptized, upon the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. I presume your view is that that episode is an exception. But based on what? Just your hunch that Acts 10 is normative? Contrary to the rest of the NT?

What is Romans 6:3-5 saying?..The phrase “baptized into” occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB…
…To be baptized “into Christ,” “into His death,” “into Moses,” and “into one body” is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. …

But the thing you will note is that those verses do not say that to be “baptized” is to be publically identifiedwith Christ. Seriously. Look at the verses again. You’re the person who says that. Not the text. There is, again, no reason to suppose, other than your a priori assumptions, that those verses do not mean what they say. That to be “baptized into Christ” is to clothe yourself in Christ. Seems pretty straight forward. People always accuse Catholics of not taking Scripture seriously, but you see now that we are the ones who accept the verses at face value. You interpolate notions of “identification” into the verses.

The one about being “baptized into Moses” is one of my favorite images, because it shows the intense connection between the OT and the NT. Again, the verse says nothing about identification. Rather, is represents the vital connection between the exodus of the OT with the exodus of the NT, which occurs for everyone in baptism. The Israelites were saved from Egyptian slavery, definitively, as they passed through the waters with Moses. Christians are saved from slavery to sin as they pass through the water of baptism with Jesus. Following the passing through the Red Sea, the Israelites ate “supernatural food” and drank “supernatural drink” (v. 3-4), as Catholics do once they have been baptized (Eucharist). And furthermore, we see that, though the Christians have been saved from slavery to sin and consume supernatural food, nevertheless, Christians still need to be on guard against evil. For passing through the Red Sea (baptism) and eating supernatural food (Eucharist) did not guarantee entrance into the Promised Land (heaven; v. 5).

Anyway, you see that, really, you are reading the scriptures in the light of your own biases, as opposed to reading them for what they say.

God bless.

 

[VociMike]

When people are baptised they are identifying them self as a believer in a public way.

Nice theory, but what is the point of identifying oneself as a believer to a church full of other believers? That’s a classic case of preaching to the choir. And what about private baptisms – do they count? And if the goal is to identify oneself as a believer, what’s wrong with saying to the assembled crowd “I am a believer!”?

 

[JimO]

What is sobering to me is that individuals say, “I don’t believe…” as though their belief or nonbelief makes something true or false. The Truth is what it is and has nothing to do with our agreement. There is a quote that I keep in my office that I love. Unfortunately, I don’t know to whom it is attributed. It is, “The Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces.” Whether it be the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, baptism, or the Eucharist, the Truth is what it is. Our job is not to define the Truth, but to discover it.

You can make all the arguments you want refuting specific Catholic teachings, but Catholics like myself who have come to accept that the Church has the ultimate authority regarding matters of faith and morals believe that Church teaching is the Truth. You can quote Scripture, make your own interpretations, or even quote theologians and Greek scholars, but you have to realize that for a Catholic, it is much larger and much deeper than our own opinions or interpretations.

I also find that many who object to a teaching of the Church, or to Christian dogma, often have an underlying reason why they don’t want the teaching to be true because of the implications. As an example, a good friend of mine is a Protestant and he kept trying to convince me that the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is wrong, using as evidence, the long list of Protestant theologians and their interpretations. Well, I told him of course all those theologians held the opinions they did. What alternative did they have? If they acknowledged the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, what would be the implication?

 

[kepha444]

To be clear, what he says is that “baptism…saves you”. So, by placing it in context, your conclusion is that baptism doesn’t save you. That’s not contextualizing a verse. It’s completely neutralizing it and ignoring it.

Me too. Though not the heretical one, but the cultic and heretical one. And only for a short period of time. I also didn’t agree with them on baptism, and that was one reason I eventually left them. But on this point, I would agree with them now.

But that is obviously not all that Paul said. He also said:

And Peter, in the same book, says:

And in his epistles, Paul says:

No reason to think that by “baptized” he didn’t mean “baptized” other than a priori assumptions.

And he says:

and:

No reason to think that by “washed” he doesn’t mean the same washing he refers to in Acts 22, quoted above.

Indeed that’s a tough verse for Catholics. But no tougher than Acts 8:16-17 for your view.

This really is your best argument. But is it not an exception? You seem to interpret the rest of the verses on baptism according to this one passage. But that’s not contextualization. You’re just finding justification for your views in one verse, and then saying the other verses MUST mean something other than what they say. In Acts 8, you will see that people received the Holy Spirit after they believed and were baptized, upon the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. I presume your view is that that episode is an exception. But based on what? Just your hunch that Acts 10 is normative? Contrary to the rest of the NT?

But the thing you will note is that those verses do not say that to be “baptized” is to be publically identifiedwith Christ. Seriously. Look at the verses again. You’re the person who says that. Not the text. There is, again, no reason to suppose, other than your a priori assumptions, that those verses do not mean what they say. That to be “baptized into Christ” is to clothe yourself in Christ. Seems pretty straight forward. People always accuse Catholics of not taking Scripture seriously, but you see now that we are the ones who accept the verses at face value. You interpolate notions of “identification” into the verses.

The one about being “baptized into Moses” is one of my favorite images, because it shows the intense connection between the OT and the NT. Again, the verse says nothing about identification. Rather, is represents the vital connection between the exodus of the OT with the exodus of the NT, which occurs for everyone in baptism. The Israelites were saved from Egyptian slavery, definitively, as they passed through the waters with Moses. Christians are saved from slavery to sin as they pass through the water of baptism with Jesus. Following the passing through the Red Sea, the Israelites ate “supernatural food” and drank “supernatural drink” (v. 3-4), as Catholics do once they have been baptized (Eucharist). And furthermore, we see that, though the Christians have been saved from slavery to sin and consume supernatural food, nevertheless, Christians still need to be on guard against evil. For passing through the Red Sea (baptism) and eating supernatural food (Eucharist) did not guarantee entrance into the Promised Land (heaven; v. 5).

Anyway, you see that, really, you are reading the scriptures in the light of your own biases, as opposed to reading them for what they say.

God bless.

I am reading it the way the church understands it. NO offence but after 2000years i think that i'll go with what the church teaches, and what Jesus commaded we do thanks anywayBill

 

[buffalo]

Jn 3:5, 22 - born of water & Spirit; Apostles begin baptizing
Tit 3:5 - saved us through bath of rebirth & renewal by Holy Spirit
Acts 2:37-38 - repent, be baptized, receive gift of Holy Spirit
Acts 22:16 - get selves baptized and sins washed away
1Cor 6:11 - you were washed, sanctified, justified
Rom 6:4 - baptized into death; live in newness of life
1Pet 3:21 - baptism…now saves you
Heb 10:22 - heart sprinkled, bodies washed in pure water

Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16 - baptism required for entering heaven
1Cor 15:21-22 - in Adam all die, in Christ all made alive
Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom
Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him…
Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision
Jos 24:15 - as for me and my house, we will serve Lord
Mt 8:5ff. - daughter healed because of centurion’s faith
Mt 15:21ff. - daughter healed because of Canaanite woman’s faith
Lk 7:1ff. - just say the word, and let my servant be healed
Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved
Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once
1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas