Is Baptism Needed?

[Roblox84]

I have stumbled onto this anti christian website by accident in search of the baptism passages. I will post the websites rhetoric that is used to provide a counter claim of baptism even being necessary.

First I would just like someone to clear something up for me. It seems many opposed to a christian baptism attribute baptism to a “work”. Is this even possible because these passages clearly state that we are saved by Gods grace and having faith, (John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9: Titus 3:5). So if baptism is a grace instituted by God, how can it also be a work? And if one believes that God gave his one and only Son, then that person shall not perish but have eternal life, so wouldn’t believing in baptism be equivalent to believing Gods word, which in turn would be having faith?

Here is the post that I found on another website. The reason I am posting it is because I was just wondering if they left any important passages out. And someone either then me might be more skilled at finding passages if not have them already handy. Thanks everyone.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is: “The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?

If “being born of water and the Spirit” is not referring to baptism, then what does it mean? Traditionally, there have been two interpretations of this phrase. The first is that being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. While that is certainly a possible interpretation of the term “born of water” and would seem to fit the context of Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born “when he is old,” it is not the best interpretation given the context of this passage. After all, Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. What He was doing was explaining to Nicodemus his need to be “born from above” or “born again.”

The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).

They try to disprove baptism for people as necessary but yet they stated: (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5). They first said it isn’t necessary and then they say that it is a cleansing and regeneration given by God. So if it wasn’t necessary why would God be doing this?

 

[TriuneUnity]

First I would just like someone to clear something up for me. It seems many opposed to a christian baptism attribute baptism to a “work”. Is this even possible because these passages clearly state that we are saved by Gods grace and having faith, (John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9: Titus 3:5). So if baptism is a grace instituted by God, how can it also be a work? And if one believes that if he gave his one and only Son, then he shall not perish but have eternal life, wouldn’t believing in baptism be equivalent to believing Gods word, which in turn would be having faith?

Wonderfully insightful, Rob. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Baptism is not man’s work, it is God’s.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect.

And when Jesus preached about repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins, He wasn’t yet crucified for forgiveness. What does Baptism not being instituted yet have to do with it? Suddenly, God is bound by chronological sequence?

This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved.

And if he didn’t find himself in the inconvenient position of being nailed to a cross, he would have been baptized. They always use an exception to disprove the rule.

A common reply to that question is: “The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?

I have never heard the Old Covenant argument.

The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).

Yep…and God uses the means of physical, visible water, to effect that salvation. Otherwise, how would we know it has happened?

 

[jpk1313]

I have stumbled onto this anti christian website by accident in search of the baptism passages. I will post the websites rhetoric that is used to provide a counter claim of baptism even being necessary.

First I would just like someone to clear something up for me. It seems many opposed to a christian baptism attribute baptism to a “work”. Is this even possible because these passages clearly state that we are saved by Gods grace and having faith, (John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9: Titus 3:5). So if baptism is a grace instituted by God, how can it also be a work? And if one believes that God gave his one and only Son, then that person shall not perish but have eternal life, so wouldn’t believing in baptism be equivalent to believing Gods word, which in turn would be having faith?

Here is the post that I found on another website. The reason I am posting it is because I was just wondering if they left any important passages out. And someone either then me might be more skilled at finding passages if not have them already handy. Thanks everyone.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is: “The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?

If “being born of water and the Spirit” is not referring to baptism, then what does it mean? Traditionally, there have been two interpretations of this phrase. The first is that being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. While that is certainly a possible interpretation of the term “born of water” and would seem to fit the context of Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born “when he is old,” it is not the best interpretation given the context of this passage. After all, Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. What He was doing was explaining to Nicodemus his need to be “born from above” or “born again.”

The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5).

They try to disprove baptism for people as necessary but yet they stated: (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5). They first said it isn’t necessary and then they say that it is a cleansing and regeneration given by God. So if it wasn’t necessary why would God be doing this?

The person saying baptism is not nessasary does not know his theology. 1) the theif did not baptism by water becuse he was in no postion to recive it and was baptized by by simply wanting to. If he could have been he would have been so it counts. But just wanting to is not enough for the average person. If you can be then you sould be and not put it off. 2) When he says baptisim was not yet in effect he is wrong becuse John the Baptist had put it into effect. And it was in fact in effect since befor the world began. God is every where and at every point in time. He planed to put the sacrament of baptism (and every other sacrament for that matter) into effect since before he created the world.
3) where he says Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5). he just showed that his argument that baptism is not needed is wrong.
The person who wrote this argument against baptism is not someone who knows what they are talking about it seems and as such their veiws are of little worth and should just be ignored.

Oh and there are three kinds of baptism 1) water as a sign of repentance and entry into the body of christ 2) baptism of blood. The martyrs who died before water baptism recived this kind. and 3) baptism by desire. Like the theif on the cross this baptism is recived by someone who belives but for what ever reason does not have the chance to recive baptism by water.

 

[Roblox84]

The person saying baptism is not nessasary does not know his theology. 1) the theif did not baptism by water becuse he was in no postion to recive it and was baptized by by simply wanting to.

I am very aware of this. I think that some people have a different opinion on what a baptism might be. I guess they try to disprove the action of baptism that we perform in the church without knowing that one will or can be baptized at death.

So then technically would they be correct in stating that the traditional catholic, protestant baptism is not necessary for salvation since a person would still receive a baptism at their death bed?

I guess I myself maybe confused and am not getting if they are trying to disprove the action of baptism (as in the church) or baptism as a whole as instituted by God.

 

[NHInsider]

I am very aware of this. I think that some people have a different opinion on what a baptism might be. I guess they try to disprove the action of baptism that we perform in the church without knowing that one will or can be baptized at death.

So then technically would they be correct in stating that the traditional catholic, protestant baptism is not necessary for salvation since a person would still receive a baptism at their death bed?

I guess I myself maybe confused and am not getting if they are trying to disprove the action of baptism (as in the church) or baptism as a whole as instituted by God.

The quote you gave in red is from someone who believes Baptism is a symbolic act that serves as a public profession of faith - that’s why they call it an “ordinance” and not a sacrament.

Baptism is the “ordinary” means of entering the Church which is the Body of Christ-it is what He commanded. He is not limited by the sacraments He instituted, and so He can accept someone who has not received sacramental (water) baptism on the basis of their faith (which presumes the faithful would have a desire to be baptised if the opportunity existed and if he/she knew Jesus had commanded it) or their willingness to die for the faith. So we are not free to “not bother” with Baptism and presume upon God’s grace - if we have the opportunity to be Baptised, we are obliged to take it.