Is baptism part of Salvation?

[eaglesmark]

What does that matter? John the Baptist’s baptism was symbolic. Christian Baptisms are regenerative.

So your trying to tell that those who were baptised by John received a different baptism than those who were baptised by the apostles afterwards? If those baptised by John the Baptist was symbolic then those people who went there to the baptism by John the Baptist were just made to believe by John on something that was not. And those people needed to be baptised again by apostles and other christians since they have not been regenerated?
Were the apostles and other disciples of Jesus baptised by another person? If the apostles and other disciples of Jesus were baptised by John the baptist since there is no other person written in the bible that was baptising people before John the baptist was beheaded then the apostles have not been regenerated.

 

[eaglesmark]

Just as Jews were brought into the Covenant by their parents actions, infant circumcision, Christians are brought into the New Covenant by their parents actions, infant Baptism. Circumcision, as St. Paul stated, pre-figures Baptism.

Circumcision was a sign of covenant between Abraham and the whole generation of Israel.
Gen17:9 - And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

My friend, circumcision was specifically instructed by God as a sign of covenant between Him and Abraham and Abraham’s seed.

About baptism? Did Jesus tell us also that we have to baptise our children? Jesus did say “Let the children come to me…”, but did Jesus baptised those children? People were bringing those children, but did He say have them baptised?
What is in a child that is most likely not present with a grown up? When you say something to a child that child would certainly believe what you will say whole heartedly. Jesus made those children as an example to His disciples and other people present since not all of them were believers, some if not most were skeptics. Most grown ups doubted Jesus and are hard hearted because most would think about their pride, what others may say, etc. That is why, unless we become as children (forget our pride, and anything that prevent us on believing in Jesus), we cannot enter in the Kingdom of God.

Jesus did not say, “Have these children baptised”

 

[christcnection1]

Why was Jesus Christ baptized by John the Baptist? Has Jesus Christ sinned? - mat 3:13-17

Why didn’t John the Baptist baptize those sinners (Pharisees and Saducees) who went to be baptized of him? mat 3:7-8

Was there an infant baptized during that time? mat.3:6 (can an infant confess his sin?)

What is required before a person will be baptized? Does a child has the capability to believe this? acts 8:35-38

Why was Jesus Christ baptized by John the Baptist? Has Jesus Christ sinned? - mat 3:13-17

No, of course not. Catholic Christians believe that Jesus was sinless. However, if Jesus did not get baptized though, He would not be fufilling all righteousness.

Was there an infant baptized during that time? mat.3:6 (can an infant confess his sin?)
What is required before a person will be baptized? Does a child has the capability to believe this? acts 8:35-38

Yes and No.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea4.asp
catholic.com/library/early_teachings_of_infant_baptism.asp

Why didn’t John the Baptist baptize those sinners (Pharisees and Saducees) who went to be baptized of him? mat 3:7-8

Because they were not truly repentant. The normal path for adults is faith, repentance, and then baptism. There can be exceptions (the thief on the cross), because God can work beyond the ordinary means.​

Now, I have a few questions for you…

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” (Why do you think our Lord even mentioned baptism here?)
Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. (Why would Paul say that baptism washes away sins if it’s only symbolic?)
1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience." (Why say that baptism saves you if it does not save you?)
John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(Why is water required?)
Obviously there are many, many more verses.

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Finally, why doesn’t the Bible just say baptism is symbolic? It doesn’t say that anywhere. Show me where in the early church they believed that baptism was symbolic? This concept was invented after during Reformation. Even Martin Luther believed in infant baptism.

In your opinion, what was even the point of our Lord instituting baptism at all? This would seem like a pointless ritual to me, if it were merely symbolic.

Ultimately, this comes down to how you interpret the Bible. Show me where in the Bible that says your private interpretation is what counts.

I believe in the Church’s interpretation, because the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (not the Bible alone based on individual interpretation.) 1 Tim 3:15

God bless you my sibling in Christ. Maybe we can just agree to disagree. Continue seeking the Lord’s heart and will. I love you.

 

[NotWorthy]

So your trying to tell that those who were baptised by John received a different baptism than those who were baptised by the apostles afterwards? If those baptised by John the Baptist was symbolic then those people who went there to the baptism by John the Baptist were just made to believe by John on something that was not. And those people needed to be baptised again by apostles and other christians since they have not been regenerated?
Were the apostles and other disciples of Jesus baptised by another person? If the apostles and other disciples of Jesus were baptised by John the baptist since there is no other person written in the bible that was baptising people before John the baptist was beheaded then the apostles have not been regenerated.

If you read in Acts chapter 19, you’ll see where John the Baptists’ baptisms were not regenerative, for those that had not been baptized except by him, still had to be baptized.

In Acts, chapter 19:

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?" They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There was a big difference in John’s Baptisms and the New Church’s.

BTW, Don’t you think Jesus would have taken care of any Baptism technicalities with the Apostles? Just because Scripture doesn’t mention this fact, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Because, as shown in Acts, it was very important, for it seems to have a direct link to receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[NotWorthy]

Circumcision was a sign of covenant between Abraham and the whole generation of Israel.
Gen17:9 - And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

My friend, circumcision was specifically instructed by God as a sign of covenant between Him and Abraham and Abraham’s seed.

OK, so far so good. But you sound like your arguing against me, but you’re just saying the same thing I did. There’s no arguments on my part.

About baptism? Did Jesus tell us also that we have to baptise our children? Jesus did say “Let the children come to me…”, but did Jesus baptised those children? People were bringing those children, but did He say have them baptised?

He said the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Don’t children fit into the “such as these” subset?

What is in a child that is most likely not present with a grown up? When you say something to a child that child would certainly believe what you will say whole heartedly. Jesus made those children as an example to His disciples and other people present since not all of them were believers, some if not most were skeptics. Most grown ups doubted Jesus and are hard hearted because most would think about their pride, what others may say, etc. That is why, unless we become as children (forget our pride, and anything that prevent us on believing in Jesus), we cannot enter in the Kingdom of God.

Which is why a child, who does not suffer from these adult’isms should be allowed into the Kingdom of God.

Jesus did not say, “Have these children baptised”

No, but he said “Let the children come to me”.

Paul is the most compelling link. When he says that baptism replaces circumcision, he should have stipulated, “but you gotta wait till your older…” or else Paul would have misled the people into thinking they could have their infants baptized.

 

[NotWorthy]

I posted this on another thread, but it hasn’t been adequately addressed. Eagle, let me know what you think.

As I was Lectoring at daily Mass today, I came across the story in Acts where Paul and Silas are jailed at Phillippi (Acts 16: 22-34).

After the earthquake, the jailor comes and finds out the status of the prisoners and finds them still there, so he doesn’t kill himself in shame. Listen to Paul’s response very closely, especially to what he doesn’t say:

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

He doesn’t say, you and your household who are of age. He says, you and your household! Paul then goes and baptizes the jailor and his entire household. Now Paul, who is a visitor to Phillippi, would probably not be very intimately familiar with this jailor and his family enough to know that he doesn’t have kids 12 and under. Look at where they are housed in the jail

When he received these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and secured their feet to a stake.

Not many family members would be willing to venture into this part of the jail, wouldn’t you say? But Paul emphatically says, you and your household will be saved!!!

Sounds to me like Paul is anticipating the baptism of anyone of any age of the jailor’s family.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[christcnection1]

Paul is the most compelling link. When he says that baptism replaces circumcision, he should have stipulated, “but you gotta wait till your older…” or else Paul would have misled the people into thinking they could have their infants baptized.

Yes, indeed. Good point. No where does the Bible say that children should not be baptized. You must assume it’s wrong even though the Bible doesn’t say explicitly. Quite the contrary, the Bible implies they should.

Moreover, the Bible never claims to be the final and sole rule of faith. Sola Scripturists must assume the Bible is the only thing to go on. The apostles and early church never believed in using the Bible alone. That took 1500 years.

Ultimately, this comes down to how you desire to interpret scripture. Therefore, truth then becomes the Bible alone with your infallible interpretation. Best of luck. I am relying on the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15

(I’m not speaking of you NotWorthy; I’m just speaking in general. I know you agree with this.)

 

[NotWorthy]

(I’m not speaking of you NotWorthy; I’m just speaking in general. I know you agree with this.)

You’re lucky, there. For a minute I thought we were fixin’ to “throw down”. :ehh:

 

[eaglesmark]

If you read in Acts chapter 19, you’ll see where John the Baptists’ baptisms were not regenerative, for those that had not been baptized except by him, still had to be baptized.

In Acts, chapter 19:
There was a big difference in John’s Baptisms and the New Church’s.

BTW, Don’t you think Jesus would have taken care of any Baptism technicalities with the Apostles? Just because Scripture doesn’t mention this fact, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Because, as shown in Acts, it was very important, for it seems to have a direct link to receiving the Holy Spirit.

BTW, whose disciples where they? Were they of John or of Apollos?

 

[NotWorthy]

BTW, whose disciples where they? Were they of John or of Apollos?

I don’t know, nor do I know that it matters, for they were baptized by John. Would you care to enlighten me?