Is baptism really necessary for salvation?

[Freebird]

I had a discussion with my Protestant friend over whether or not she believed baptism is truly necessary for salvation. I quoted john 3:5 (“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.”)
and mark 16:16 (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”)

She argued that mark 16:16 stated only that he who does not believe shall be damned, not (and/or) he who is not baptized shall be damned. For John 3:5, she argued that the text doesn’t explicitly read “if a guy is baptized he’s going to Heaven” - and that the choice of wording in the verse - born of water and Spirit, not baptized of water - was deliberate. Also, that the “water” reffered to was really the power of Jesus himself to cleanse and forgive sin, as he stated “i am the living water.” “no one comes to the father except through me.”
She also reminded me that there are countless verses in the Bible stating belief/faith is the sole foundation needed to enter Heaven.
of course… this doesn’t disqualify the few spots in the Bible concerning both baptism and salvation as applicable. But the interpretations she gave on the two verses I could find, make sense…She also argued (being protestant) that baptism is mostly serves as a symbol of your concious chosing to follow God and have faith, and in turn, receive salvation.

Is there anywhere else baptism and salvation are tied together in the Bible?
i’m a little confused

thanks for your help!
-bree

 

[Todd_Easton]

…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. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,… (2 Peter 3:20-21)

 

[runandsew]

Here is another tread"If Baptism IS essential for salvation" going on right now.
I would check out the Scott Hahn audio “our fathers plan” I think it is the Gospels II program that covers John chapter three, to show that it is talking about baptism. It takes about the fisrst 13 minutes of the audio program, but it is worth the listen.

 

[richardeekw]

Here you are

Scripture-Catholic - Mr John Salza’s website
scripturecatholic.com/#baptism-II

Baptism is Salvific; Not only Symbolic
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Infallibly-Interpreted Bible Verses
A List of the Bible verses which the Catholic Church has interpreted infallibly and definitively
by MARIO DERKSEN (editor)
One of the verses is

John 3:5 (“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”) shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.

cathinsight.com/apologetics/verses.htm

 

[Freebird]

Here is another tread"If Baptism IS essential for salvation" going on right now.
I would check out the Scott Hahn audio “our fathers plan” I think it is the Gospels II program that covers John chapter three, to show that it is talking about baptism. It takes about the fisrst 13 minutes of the audio program, but it is worth the listen.

The thread answered a lot of questions for me, and I will definitely be checking out the audio. Thanks so much for your help.
God Bless!!
-Bree

 

[jemfinch]

She argued that mark 16:16 stated only that he who does not believe shall be damned, not (and/or) he who is not baptized shall be damned.

So, in other words, she believes in some magical state between “saved” and damned" to which un-baptized believers are consigned?

For John 3:5, she argued that the text doesn’t explicitly read “if a guy is baptized he’s going to Heaven”

No verse says that, because baptism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation. Protestants are always trying to discover that magical “sufficient condition” for salvation by ignoring verses that teach otherwise.

and that the choice of wording in the verse - born of water and Spirit, not baptized of water - was deliberate. Also, that the “water” reffered to was really the power of Jesus himself to cleanse and forgive sin, as he stated “i am the living water.” “no one comes to the father except through me.”

Yup, sure. That’s why, immediately after this dialogue, Jesus and His disciples went out and baptized people. Clearly, He wasn’t talking about baptism. This is, incidentally, the only time Jesus is recorded to do the baptizing in the Bible.

She also reminded me that there are countless verses in the Bible stating belief/faith is the sole foundation needed to enter Heaven.

No there aren’t. They are countless verses in the Bible stating that belief, like baptism, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation. For instance, 1 Peter 3:21 says “Baptism now saves you.” Nothing else is mentioned. So does that mean that “Baptism is the sole foundation needed to enter heaven”? No, of course not. Taking into account the whole Bible, it simply means that baptism is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to enter heaven. Same thing with faith.

Besides, the faith that is described as salvific in the Bible is contrasted, not with disbelief, but with disobedience. See John 3:36 for the proof.

She also argued (being protestant) that baptism is mostly serves as a symbol of your concious chosing to follow God and have faith, and in turn, receive salvation.

God doesn’t work in mere symbols. God works in efficacious signs. Circumcision was not a mere symbol of an entrance into the covenant of Abraham that had already been effected; circumcision, which baptism fulfills, actually made the boy a participant in the covenant. Why would the Old Covenant sign be effectual, but the New Covenant be an ineffectual symbol?

Is there anywhere else baptism and salvation are tied together in the Bible?

Baptism is the only way described in the Bible by which we become part of the Body of Christ. (Ephesians, iirc)

Baptism is the only way described in the Bible by which we are brought “into” Christ. (Galatians, I think) Note also 2 Corinthians states that anyone who is “in Christ” is a “new creation” – since baptism is the only way described in the Bible to get “into” Christ, then it’s the only way to become a “new creation” in Christ. Fits nicely with the “born again” thing, doesn’t it?

Baptism is the only way described in the Bible by which we “put on” Christ. (Definitely Galatians)

Baptism is the only way described in the Bible by which we are “buried with Christ” in order to be raised in His likeness. (Romans 6)

I and others have made much more extensive arguments at the (very!) long thread here. Few if any of the points were countered in a remotely reasonable way by this forum’s favorite “bible apologist.”

Jeremy

 

[Freebird]

Jeremy, thank you so much for your help…this is exactly the type of response I needed.

However, what you said about John 3:36 seems contradictory…?

Besides, the faith that is described as salvific in the Bible is contrasted, not with disbelief, but with disobedience. See John 3:36 for the proof.

This is a point I would like to prove, but the verse seems to say the exact opposite:

John 3:36:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

How is that disobedience?..it seems more like simple, flat-out unbelief.

Thanks again and I look forward to your reply

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Short answer is no .

Let look at the 23rd chapter of Luke. Two other criminals were on crosses with Jesus that day. Look at verses 42-43. one criminal had faith in Jesus and Jesus said he ( the criminal ) would be in paradise with Jesus that day. Did this criminal receive water baptism , no he did not.

Because Jesus died before the criminal , the criminal is one of the first recorded members of the church to be saved by Jesus death on the cross.

As we see from this chapter the only thing the thief could do was repent and have FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

 

[richardeekw]

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

In Mk 16:16,
Baptism is only for those who believe. Baptism by water is only an outward expression of what is more important – ‘Believe’. The inward reality, which ia moew impoetant and cannot be seen.If baptism by water is as important as ‘believe’ then logically the text should read “…whoever does no t believe( and is not baptised ) will be condemned.”

But then, Jesus has to say, “… no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit “

A Christian can be outwardly baptised with water without baptism of the Spirit i.e. “living in the Spirit” (St. Paul) or ‘metanoia’ – a complete change of lifestyle in accordance with Christ’s teachings.If Baptism is more central to salvation, Jesus would have left out the Spirit. But He did not.

St Paul explains this in clear terms:1 Cor 12:1313 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Baptism is basically in the Spirit. This is expressed in the symbolic outward sign of immersion in water. Did not St. Peter explain that the Gentiles (Cornelius’ household) have already received the “identical things”(Spirit) from God before baptism with water?Acts 10:44-11:17​

The Catholic Tradition has always taught there are 2 other types of baptism besides the baptism with water.·

-** Baptism of desire·

• Baptism with fire**

If a person desires to be a Christian by due to unforeseen circumstances, dies before receiving baptism with water, the person has received what we call – baptism of desire.

In a persecution if someone refuses to reject Christ, and is killed before receiving the baptism with water, the person has received baptism with fire.Christ would not possibly condemn such people.

Nevertheless we cannot judge the inner motives of such people. Theologian Karl Rahner describes such people as “Anonymous Christians”.

 

[jemfinch]

Jeremy, thank you so much for your help…this is exactly the type of response I needed.

No problem. It’s been a “pet issue” of mine since before I was Catholic

However, what you said about John 3:36 seems contradictory…?

This is a point I would like to prove, but the verse seems to say the exact opposite:

John 3:36:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

How is that disobedience?..it seems more like simple, flat-out unbelief.

I thought that’s might be a result of the use of the Textus Receptus by the KJV, since the translation is repeated in the NKJV and the Douay-Rheims New Testament, but from looking at Biblegateway’s “1894 Scrivener’s” text (which should be the TR), it looks like that theory is busted. Look at any modern translation (NASB, ESV, RSV, even the NIV) and you’ll see “does not obey” or similar, since it’s translated from the Greek word apeitho^n which means exactly that: disobedience.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Short answer is no .

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.” Your “short answer” exhibits a lack of biblical exegesis and an utter incoherence with Christian Tradition.

Let look at the 23rd chapter of Luke. Two other criminals were on crosses with Jesus that day. Look at verses 42-43. one criminal had faith in Jesus and Jesus said he ( the criminal ) would be in paradise with Jesus that day. Did this criminal receive water baptism , no he did not.

Because Jesus died before the criminal , the criminal is one of the first recorded members of the church to be saved by Jesus death on the cross.

As we see from this chapter the only thing the thief could do was repent and have FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

So the next time you’re hanging on a cross next to the Son of God, don’t worry: just like the thief on the cross, you won’t need to be baptized to be saved. I’m happy to affrm this biblical truth. But how often does that happen, really?

It always amazes me when people take the thief on the cross or Cornelius (Acts 10) as normative for all Christians everywhere. Both were exceptional examples: the thief because he died on a cross next to God Himself, and Cornelius because he served as proof to Peter that Gentiles were welcome in the Church. Why should these two extraordinary examples cause us to deny the huge corpus of biblical material which indicates that baptism is salvific and normatively essential for salvation?

Let’s look at Paul’s conversion. Paul fasted and prayed for three days. He certainly believed in Jesus, who had revealed Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus. And yet Ananias still told Paul, “Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins!” Peter preached on Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins.” Clearly, the normative case in the Christian’s life is for baptism to have a salvific effect.

Is baptism necessary for salvation? It depends on what you mean by necessary. Sure, God can and does occasionally work through means other than the ones He has revealed: the thief on the cross and Cornelius and his household are examples of such. God is certainly not limited or hindered by His sacraments. But God has revealed only one way to get into Christ. God has revealed only one way to “put on” Christ. God has revealed only one way to wash away our sins. How can we preach anything other than the one way that God has revealed to do all those things, things which are, most definitely, necessary for salvation?

Jeremy

 

[Scarab495]

Yes baptism is necessary. No baptism by WATER is not necessary.

 

[De_Maria]

Re: is baptism really necessary for salvation?

The short answer is, “yes.” But my long answer is going to differ so much from the rest of the Catholics on this thread that you might wonder whether I’m a reformer. I’m not. I’m Catholic, through and through.

I had a discussion with my Protestant friend over whether or not she believed baptism is truly necessary for salvation. I quoted john 3:5 (“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.”)
and mark 16:16 (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”)

She argued that mark 16:16 stated only that he who does not believe shall be damned, not (and/or) he who is not baptized shall be damned.

Lets look at the actual words. Since she’s Protestant, we’ll examine the KJV:
Mark 16:16
**He that believeth and is ****baptized shall be saved; but he that **believeth not shall be damned.

He that believeth and** is **baptized shall be saved

The conjunction there is AND. That means that both conditions must be met. The person being baptized must believe that God will accomplish what He promised. Otherwise, as the second clause states, he is condemned.

For John 3:5, she argued that the text doesn’t explicitly read “if a guy is baptized he’s going to Heaven” - and that the choice of wording in the verse - born of water and Spirit, not baptized of water - was deliberate.

I’ve always understood it to mean, born of water - natural birth. And of Spirit - Spiritual birth. That is why one is born again. Two births.

Also, that the “water” reffered to was really the power of Jesus himself to cleanse and forgive sin, as he stated “i am the living water.” “no one comes to the father except through me.”

Christ is the living water, He is the fountain through whom we receive the Spirit which washes us of sin. It is this washing which is the True Baptism to which the Church refers.

Scripture says that there is One Baptism:
Ephesians 4:5
**One Lord, ****one faith, ****one ****baptism,
**
The Catholic Church lists three:
[1258](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1258.htm’) *The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the *desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

The three mentioned here are the Sacrament of water and Spirit with which we are all familiar, and Baptisms of Blood and Desire.

Does this teaching contradict Scripture? I say no.

The only true Baptism is the washing of regeneration by the Holy Spirit:
Titus 3:5
**Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of ****regeneration, and renewing of the ****Holy **Ghost;

The use of water is only symbolic:
[1215](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1215.htm’) This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

The pouring of the water signifies and the pronouncement of the words, truly bring about what they signify, the washing of the Holy Spirit. St. Peter says it very well:
1 Peter 3:21
**The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now **save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

In other words, we aren’t there to cleanse our bodies. We are there to be cleansed of our sins by God. The Sacraments are works of God.

She also reminded me that there are countless verses in the Bible stating belief/faith is the sole foundation needed to enter Heaven.

There are just as many that say that works are necessary as well. Do we discard those?

of course… this doesn’t disqualify the few spots in the Bible concerning both baptism and salvation as applicable. But the interpretations she gave on the two verses I could find, make sense…She also argued (being protestant) that baptism is mostly serves as a symbol of your concious chosing to follow God and have faith, and in turn, receive salvation.

The water is symbolic. But it symbolizes something which really happens in the soul.

Is there anywhere else baptism and salvation are tied together in the Bible?

I don’t know.

i’m a little confused

That happens when we talk to Protestants. Without meaning any disrespect, the fact is that they are confused and therefore tend to confuse us. Remember that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. So, no matter how reasonable their answer might sound, they will frequently (not always) arrive at an erroneous conclusion. And sometimes the Catholic Answer sounds way out there, but that is because the wisdom of God is well beyond our natural wisdom. So, step in faith. Believe that you may understand and God will enlighten you to the truth of Catholic Teaching.

thanks for your help!
-bree

I hope that helped.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inocente]

My understanding is from an analogy to marriage. Baptism of the Spirit is the point where we personally acknowledge Christ as Lord, and water baptism is the public ceremony where we marry into His church - Ephesians 5:23-32.

On this business of sola fide, some folk have a belief that seems like faith alone but isn’t. The issue is to avoid being selfish by doing works just to notch up points in Heaven. That’s obviously not going to work anyway. To counter it, trust in Christ, and then do works in that trust. Your friend may be doing that without even realizing that she’s being read as faith alone.

 

[StTommyMore]

I had a discussion with my Protestant friend over whether or not she believed baptism is truly necessary for salvation. I quoted john 3:5 (“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.”)
and mark 16:16 (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”)

She argued that mark 16:16 stated only that he who does not believe shall be damned, not (and/or) he who is not baptized shall be damned. For John 3:5, she argued that the text doesn’t explicitly read “if a guy is baptized he’s going to Heaven” - and that the choice of wording in the verse - born of water and Spirit, not baptized of water - was deliberate. Also, that the “water” reffered to was really the power of Jesus himself to cleanse and forgive sin, as he stated “i am the living water.” “no one comes to the father except through me.”
She also reminded me that there are countless verses in the Bible stating belief/faith is the sole foundation needed to enter Heaven.
of course… this doesn’t disqualify the few spots in the Bible concerning both baptism and salvation as applicable. But the interpretations she gave on the two verses I could find, make sense…She also argued (being protestant) that baptism is mostly serves as a symbol of your concious chosing to follow God and have faith, and in turn, receive salvation.

Is there anywhere else baptism and salvation are tied together in the Bible?
i’m a little confused

thanks for your help!
-bree

Well, when Peter was asked in Acts 2, he replied,
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of sins.” Considering who this is coming from, I would consider that authoritative.

 

[NHInsider]

Short answer is no .

Let look at the 23rd chapter of Luke. Two other criminals were on crosses with Jesus that day. Look at verses 42-43. one criminal had faith in Jesus and Jesus said he ( the criminal ) would be in paradise with Jesus that day. Did this criminal receive water baptism , no he did not.

Because Jesus died before the criminal , the criminal is one of the first recorded members of the church to be saved by Jesus death on the cross.

As we see from this chapter the only thing the thief could do was repent and have FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

What God has ordained for us is not binding on Him, it is binding on us. He can choose to save without water baptism - in fact, He can choose to save the pagan who has never heard the Name of Jesus but who has faith (as, incidentally, He saved all the patriarchs who had never heard of Jesus. . . .). But the fact that God can choose to work outside the parameters He has set does not mean that He has not set parameters, or that He does not intend for us to obey Him.