If Baptism IS essential for salvation...

[malachi_a_serva]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

 

[Church_Militant]

Same thing expressed differently.

 

[Pax]

The NT writers did indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation per the following verses of scripture.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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,

1 PETER 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Della]

Oh, but Jesus was quite specific about the importance of baptism :

Matt.28[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

If baptism is only a sign of an already held belief, why would Jesus require it as a part of his great commission? It must do more than that–it must do what he said it would do–bring rebirth to the soul who is baptized in water and the spirit.

Rom.6[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

You’re looking in the wrong chapter of Romans for Paul’s words on baptism and its necessity.

Eph.4[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Seems pretty important to Paul here, too. He lists one baptsim, along with one Lord, and one faith as signs of the Church.

Col.2[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul’s teaching about the meaning/importance of baptism re-expressed.

1Pet.3[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Seems Peter thought baptism was important to salvation, too.

 

[Veritas41]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

Look at the context of what He says in John 3:5 – after His conversation with Nicodemus, it says in verse 22, “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

 

[spauline]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

if someone is validly baptized as an infant, they indeed receive grace. But if you don’t give a plant water and sunshine, it’ll die. Same thing with the baptized infant. If they are not nurtured with the sunlight of Christ’s truth (i.e., Catholic teaching) and the nutrition of soil/water, which is grace, they will die spiritually. and if they persist in spiritual death, then they will end up in hell.

Q for you, malachi, do you believe you can lose your salvation? If you do not, then this is already a problem. There is no sense in talking arguing about baptism if you believe that salvation can never be lost through grievous sin.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

if someone is validly baptized as an infant, they indeed receive grace. But if you don’t give a plant water and sunshine, it’ll die. Same thing with the baptized infant. If they are not nurtured with the sunlight of Christ’s truth (i.e., Catholic teaching) and the nutrition of soil/water, which is grace, they will die spiritually. and if they persist in spiritual death, then they will end up in hell.

Q for you, malachi, do you believe you can lose your salvation? If you do not, then this is already a problem. There is no sense in talking arguing about baptism if you believe that salvation can never be lost through grievous sin.

Hello spauline;

On the note of OSAS, I will say this. The Holy Scriptures has powerful verses that could be used to suppoort both sides. I would rather leave it at:

Live life AS IF YOU COULD LOSE your salvation.

This should keep things in the right perspective. I was raised Catholic - so deep down I would reply “yes” and prior to being born again. I was “born again” almost 3 years ago which for that time I would have replied “no”. I believe it is best left as I presented it .

Sealed unto redemption.

I think most would have to conceed that there are strong scriptures for both positions.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hello spauline;

On the note of OSAS, I will say this. The Holy Scriptures has powerful verses that could be used to suppoort both sides. I would rather leave it at:

Live life AS IF YOU COULD LOSE your salvation.

This should keep things in the right perspective. I was raised Catholic - so deep down I would reply “yes” and prior to being born again. I was “born again” almost 3 years ago which for that time I would have replied “no”. I believe it is best left as I presented it .

Sealed unto redemption.

I think most would have to conceed that there are strong scriptures for both positions.

Thanks for your reply.

This really gives a lot of credence to Catholicism though, doesn’t it? Would God really leave His Church without the answer to this *critical *question, leaving us with so powerful verses on each side that we cannot know the answer? Or, would He give us an infallible teaching Church so that we will know the answer and move on, rather than causing argument and dissension among brethren (not to mention leaving some at peril of damnation, if we can indeed lose it)?

 

[VociMike]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

He transmitted more understanding to us by saying it the way He did.

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

Because they were not writing a manual of the faith. They were not writing a catechism. The Church understood full well the place of baptism, and taught the place of baptism. But people who expect the bible to be something it is not (a rulebook, a manual) will end up confused or in error because of their own misunderstanding of what scripture is, why God has given it to us, and what its place is in the plan of salvation.

 

[Veritas41]

This really gives a lot of credence to Catholicism though, doesn’t it? Would God really leave His Church without the answer to this *critical *question, leaving us with so powerful verses on each side that we cannot know the answer? Or, would He give us an infallible teaching Church so that we will know the answer and move on, rather than causing argument and dissension among brethren (not to mention leaving some at peril of damnation, if we can indeed lose it)?

good point – it was questions like that that led me to the Catholic faith

 

[djrakowski]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - Mark 16:16 (NIV)

He did say so!

 

[Church_Militant]

Many things that n-C churches tell me are not “core” beliefs I find to be Biblically stated otherwise.

Baptism just for an example. Many of the modern post-reformation step children have relegated this to some sort peripheral nicety that we “should” do but it’s not necessary for one’s salvation. Yet I find an awful lot of New Testament scripture that indicates otherwise.

Examples:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “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.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: 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.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There are others, but I just want to get a scriptural basis for this discussion laid.

Is Baptism a “core teaching” and neccesary for salvation?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Pax]

Hello spauline;

On the note of OSAS, I will say this. The Holy Scriptures has powerful verses that could be used to suppoort both sides. I would rather leave it at:

Live life AS IF YOU COULD LOSE your salvation.

This should keep things in the right perspective. I was raised Catholic - so deep down I would reply “yes” and prior to being born again. I was “born again” almost 3 years ago which for that time I would have replied “no”. I believe it is best left as I presented it .

Sealed unto redemption.

I think most would have to conceed that there are strong scriptures for both positions.

Thanks for your reply.

I do not wish to divert the thread and will not present arguments against OSAS in this post. I think, however, that it may be useful for you to start a thread on the subject of bible verses that you believe lend powerful support to OSAS. IMHO the verses that have been used to support the teaching, in point of fact, do not do so. I do not present this as an argumentative challenge, but only propose it as a possible suggestion for shedding light on the subject.

I appreciate your style and demeanor…may the Lord’s blessings be upon you forever.

 

[jmcrae]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

He did, but people manage to explain those verses away, too - “He didn’t really mean water baptism” even though baptism is a word that means “pouring water.”

Also, why wouldn’t some of the New Testament writers as well include “baptism” when confronted with what is required for salvation? (Rom 10:9 & Acts 2:21) as examples…

Probably because they were writing to people who had already been baptized. Their point was not “here is the be all and end all of all salvation,” but more like, “here’s what you do next.”

 

[runandsew]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Jesus does say “baptism” in Mark 16:16
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned”

But in The Gospel of John, we are given the “theological” meaning behind that comment.
Keeping in mind the chapter and verses were not added to the bible for some 1,200 to 1,500 years, and that chapter divisions can lead to a break in the chain of thought that the original author did not intend, let’s go back to John chapter 1.
John is going to explain whey we need to both believe and be baptized, and not just believe alone to be saved.

John 1:11-13
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

Here John writes that Jesus gave “power” to those who believed in him to become children of God.

John 2:23-25
While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing. But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all, and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well

Here John writes that people began to believe in him because of the signs, but Jesus did not trust himself to them because they only believed with human knowledge.

Jesus is going to explain how we receive the supernatural belief that is required and John will next introduce Nicodemus an an example of how this is.

John 3:1-2
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”

John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Here John explains that we have to be baptized so we can receive that supernatural power from the Holy Spirit that is required to become Children of God, and that Jesus will trust himself to us.

We know that it is water baptism that Jesus is speaking of because in Chapter 1 he speaks of both spirit and water.

John 1:32-33
John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit

And right after his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus is Baptizing with his disciples, the only place that it is mentioned that Jesus was himself present with his disciples when they were baptizing.

John 3:22-23
After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there, and people came to be baptized,

For a great explanation of this I would recommend the number 11 program of “Our Fathers Plan” by Scott Hahn. He covers it in the first part of the audio program.
Also in MP3 format “Gospels 2”

(I might be wrong on the program number but I think it is 11, or the one before or after it.) sorry.

 

[teachccd]

why wouldn’t The Lord Jesus Christ just say “baptism” instead of "Ye must be born again of water "?

Just wondering on views why he wouldn’t of just said so.

It seems that if you read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers they unanimously agreed that He did.

 

[Freebird]

Jesus is going to explain how we receive the supernatural belief that is required and John will next introduce Nicodemus an an example of how this is.

John 3:1-2
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”

John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Consider the deliberate order Jesus uses in his answer to Nicodemus.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
In a sense, “born anew” could mean the act of being forgiven, or trusting in God with your heart. (Or, it could mean baptism, in which the point that baptism is essential for salvation is emphasized even more.)

*Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. *
After Jesus had stated that one must be “born anew” to enter the kingdom of heaven, and Nicodemus had presumably accepted this, He goes even deeper with the requirements for salvation, promoting baptism and the renewal of life through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus does say “baptism” in Mark 16:16
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned”

The same thing is demostrated here. It would be redundant for Jesus to say, “he who does not believe will be condemned, and has obviously not been baptized will be condemned.”

Keep in mind the situation of people he was addressing at this time - they could not have been baptized at birth (circumsized, maybe, but not baptized) - and therefore all who believed would be in need of baptism since it had not previously been available.

If someone does not believe in God, then why would they get baptized in His name?

Faith is the first step.
Baptism is a symbol, but more importantly a choice, that one is doing the maximum to grow closer to God.

 

[runandsew]

Consider the deliberate order Jesus uses in his answer to Nicodemus.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
In a sense, “born anew” could mean the act of being forgiven, or trusting in God with your heart. (Or, it could mean baptism, in which the point that baptism is essential for salvation is emphasized even more.)

*Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. *
After Jesus had stated that one must be “born anew” to enter the kingdom of heaven, and Nicodemus had presumably accepted this, He goes even deeper with the requirements for salvation, promoting baptism and the renewal of life through the Holy Spirit.

The same thing is demostrated here. It would be redundant for Jesus to say, “he who does not believe will be condemned, and has obviously not been baptized will be condemned.”

Keep in mind the situation of people he was addressing at this time - they could not have been baptized at birth (circumsized, maybe, but not baptized) - and therefore all who believed would be in need of baptism since it had not previously been available.

If someone does not believe in God, then why would they get baptized in His name?

In John chapter two, Jesus is talking about the people who were believing in him, but he would not entust himself to them.
Natural human belief is not enough, we need a supernatural belief which baptism gives us.
Also if Baptism is just a symbol, why does it say in the Bible “Baptism now saves you.” and why did Jesus command his deciples to go out and baptize. I mean if it is just a symbol, why do we need to be baptized, why can’t I just accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, and not be baptized?

Faith is the first step.
Baptism is a symbol, but more importantly a choice, that one is doing the maximum to grow closer to God.

Yes Faith is the first step, but that doen’t make baptism just a symbol.

Jesus says: "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. "

What do you think He was referring to when he say’s born of water?, Natural birth?
That would be equivalent to him saying that you have to be a human being to enter the kingdom - as opposed to being an animal or something else - which seems unnecessary. It seems more natural to read his words as meaning that you have to be “born of water” in some deeper sense.

In Ezikiel 36:25-26 which fortells baptism:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.

This passage expresses exactly what we Catholics believe takes place in baptism. We sprinkle water on the person and God gives that person a new heart. We don’t believe that the water has some inherent power to forgive, but that Christ’s presence in the water is what brings about the forgiveness. The water is a symbol, but it is also more than a symbol. Otherwise what Anaias said to Paul makes no sence, “be baptized and wash away your sins.”

If you read the Early Church Fathers they will tie John chapter 3 to baptism, so this would indicate to me that the early Christians believed Baptism to be more than a symbol.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Faith is the first step.
Baptism is a symbol, but more importantly a choice, that one is doing the maximum to grow closer to God.

You have not established that baptism is a symbol. The scriptures supplied on this thread clearly indicate that it is not a symbol.

 

[Freebird]

You have not established that baptism is a symbol. The scriptures supplied on this thread clearly indicate that it is not a symbol.

I agree that the function of baptism is definitely not to act as a symbol – for example, it does -not- exist to influence those who are watching it to do the same.

…However, we can see it, so it IS symbolic.