Necessity for Baptism

[Prince_Hal]

Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere.

I am Mormon by background and converting to Catholicism.

What are the scriptures in the Bible that tell us the rules regarding baptism ? John 3 tells us that a man must be born of water and of the spirit if we are to enter Heaven.

But, we know that “invincible ignorance” means that a person may not necessarily have to be baptised to enter Heaven. Also there is the concern over children who die shortly after birth, who may not be baptised.

My Mormon friends will claim that God requires everyone to be baptised if they are to enter Heaven. If they are not baptised they claim that Catholics-Protestants are condeming these people to Hell. (Mormonism then of course steps in and says that there is baptism for the dead. Now their scripture doesn’t hold water - 1 Corinthians).

But, without going into a debate about Baptism for the Dead - best suited to another forum - how can I show that John 3 doesn’t mean that everyone must be physically baptised in water (in the flesh or by proxy).

Many thanks for your help,

Hal.

 

[ricko]

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . 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” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

Hope you find the above helpful all from Catholic Answers. Yes, you must be baptised. It may be by water, desire or blood. Scripture is silent about infants that die before being baptised and the Church entrusts their soul to the mercy of God.

 

[Tsion]

JMJ
If I may, I would like to add that the baptism MUST be in the name of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Otherwise it would not be valid.
I will keep you in your prayers on the conversion road.

l’shalom,
Tsion

 

[Prince_Hal]

Many thanks for your replies, and your prayers are so very welcome. If I did not believe in a devil before, I certainly do so now.

But, the press a point, John 3 seems to say that the baptism is required of water, not in some other way. Whilst I trust the Magisterium, this question is being thrown at me time and time again by my Mormon friends - and probably more importantly, my Mormon wife.

Any furtrher thoughts specifically on this ?

God bless,

Hal.

 

[Zooey]

(What am I doing here? I’m a Methodist!).

I think that part of the answer lies in the fact that the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means by which we are made part of Christ’s church.
However, God is not limited by the means by which He ordinarily acts. They are His rules, His sacraments, and He is the one who gets to decide when (and if) to save people.
It is required of us, that we be obedient to His chosen means, to the extent that we understand them, and that they are available to us.
Getting baptized was, for example, a lot easier for me than for the thief on the cross. I just showed up with Mother and Daddy when I was a few weeks old. The thief was saved by a direct action of Jesus Christ on his behalf, apart from the sacrament of baptism.

 

[Nita]

Your noting the thief on the cross Zooey, is a good example from Scripture to show that it is possible for someone who is not baptized to be saved.

A passage that could have some bearing if one makes a comparison between the Old and New Covenants would be Romans 2:12-29. (Circumcision was the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. Baptism is the initiation rite into the New Covenant.)

Verse 26: “So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”

Nita

 

[Prince_Hal]

Your noting the thief on the cross Zooey, is a good example from Scripture to show that it is possible for someone who is not baptized to be saved.

A passage that could have some bearing if one makes a comparison between the Old and New Covenants would be Romans 2:12-29. (Circumcision was the initiation rite into the Old Covenant. Baptism is the initiation rite into the New Covenant.)

Verse 26: “So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”

Nita

But Mormons will come back to me and say, that the thief on the cross was later baptised by proxy after he was dead - or will be when his name is found out. They will then tell me that there is nothing that says that John 3 is not valid in all circumstances and the only people that have a good explanation is themselves - Mormons.

It is still that tricky scripture that seems to suggest that only those born of the water will enter heaven.

Really sorry to continue this one. Many thanks for the example above - it does go a long way.

Many thanks in advance for your help,

Hal.

 

[Zooey]

Prince Hal, I am sure that it is a difficult position to be in…
I really can sympathize; I am from a family that is predominantly Baptist, and they flat out:shrug: just don’t accept that I am a baptized Christian, because I was never immersed. So, I know that this kind of thing can be tricky…
This sort of thing can be really hard to explain when the other person’s mindset is so different…
God bless.:hug1:

 

[Nita]

But Mormons will come back to me and say, that the thief on the cross was later baptised by proxy after he was dead - or will be when his name is found out. They will then tell me that there is nothing that says that John 3 is not valid in all circumstances and the only people that have a good explanation is themselves - Mormons.

It is still that tricky scripture that seems to suggest that only those born of the water will enter heaven.

Really sorry to continue this one. Many thanks for the example above - it does go a long way.

Many thanks in advance for your help,

Hal.

I have a question concerning Mormon teaching regarding baptism for the dead. Does the whole **concept **of being baptized for the dead arise from the one phrase in 1 Cor 15:29 "? (…baptized on behalf of the dead)

I realize that they can then find other passages that support the need for baptism. But, without the 1 Cor passage, would such an idea as being baptized for the dead have even crossed their mind? Do they cite other passages that they feel express the same concept, that is, the practice or existence of such a ritual?

In discussions, I would probably bring up the point that if such a rite (baptism for the dead) was absolutely necessary for the salvation of so many souls, it is highly unlikely that God would have had it mentioned in Scripture only once - and then only obscurely (just the expression with no further mention, explanation, or teaching concerning it elsewhere) ---- especially in light of the fact that God desires all to be saved (cf Jer 26:3; Ezek 18:23, 32 and 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) I’m sure the Mormons must agree that there are many, many whose names will never be known; names never recorded, etc. - both before and after Christ.

Nita

 

[Alexius]

Baptism is primarily for cleasing of the soul. If one is dead, death by Christian definition is the separation of the body from the soul. What good does baptism after death do if the soul is no longer there?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[savedsinner]

Your noting the thief on the cross Zooey, is a good example from Scripture to show that it is possible for someone who is not baptized to be saved.

Nita

How do you know that the thief on the cross was not baptized?
The bible doesn’t say whether he was or was not baptized.

 

[juliamajor]

How do you know that the thief on the cross was not baptized?
The bible doesn’t say whether he was or was not baptized.

THe Bible doesn’t say he was either? So how logically can you prove or disprove?

 

[savedsinner]

The Bible doesn’t say he was either? So how logically can you prove or disprove?

I was not the one using that passage to prove a point, I was pointing out the fact that one would have to assume he was not baptized if they use that in their argument for salvation without baptism.

 

[Nita]

How do you know that the thief on the cross was not baptized?
The bible doesn’t say whether he was or was not baptized.

My understanding (re water baptism) is that sacramental Trinitarian baptism did not begin until after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Prior to that there was the baptism of John the Baptist (cf Acts 18:25 and 19:3).

Nita

 

[Nita]

Did a little more digging on the subject. Went to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (for those who have the book, page 351). Appears there were some differing opinions as to the actual time of the institution of the sacrament of baptism. Some opined at the time of Our Lord’s baptism by John; some at the time of Our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus (John 3) and some at the time of Our Lord’s mandate given after His resurrection and before His ascension (Mt 28:19).

The last opinion is deemed most likely. Among other things, it is not until then (Mt. passage) that the specific form/words to be used (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) were given. If that is when the sacrament was instituted, then the thief would not have received the water baptism instituted by Our Lord.

Did not come across anything mentioning when the first sacramental baptism might have occurred - assuming the institution of Mt. 28:19. Was it Pentecost day (Acts 2:38-41)? Or had the apostles and disciples baptized each other prior to that? Probably have to wait till heaven to find out.

Nita

 

[Prince_Hal]

I have a question concerning Mormon teaching regarding baptism for the dead. Does the whole **concept **of being baptized for the dead arise from the one phrase in 1 Cor 15:29 "? (…baptized on behalf of the dead)

I realize that they can then find other passages that support the need for baptism. But, without the 1 Cor passage, would such an idea as being baptized for the dead have even crossed their mind? Do they cite other passages that they feel express the same concept, that is, the practice or existence of such a ritual?

In discussions, I would probably bring up the point that if such a rite (baptism for the dead) was absolutely necessary for the salvation of so many souls, it is highly unlikely that God would have had it mentioned in Scripture only once - and then only obscurely (just the expression with no further mention, explanation, or teaching concerning it elsewhere) ---- especially in light of the fact that God desires all to be saved (cf Jer 26:3; Ezek 18:23, 32 and 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) I’m sure the Mormons must agree that there are many, many whose names will never be known; names never recorded, etc. - both before and after Christ.

Nita

Agreed. 1 Corinthians 15 is a very weak passage to prove “baptism for the dead” - in fact to me it seems to clearly say something different to the Mormon explanation. But in light of John 3, if it is interpreted as the need for a physical baptism, then the baptism for the dead seems to be a viable answer (not that I believe it since there is so much else wrong with Mormonism).

I wonder if there is an answer to this one ? What did Christ actually mean by John 3 ? Was He just referring to Nicodemus ? Or just to people who receive the gospel in this life ?

God Bless,

Hal.

 

[jcrichton]

Agreed. 1 Corinthians 15 is a very weak passage to prove “baptism for the dead” - in fact to me it seems to clearly say something different to the Mormon explanation. But in light of John 3, if it is interpreted as the need for a physical baptism, then the baptism for the dead seems to be a viable answer (not that I believe it since there is so much else wrong with Mormonism).

I wonder if there is an answer to this one ? What did Christ actually mean by John 3 ? Was He just referring to Nicodemus ? Or just to people who receive the gospel in this life ?

God Bless,

Hal.

***Hi, Hal!

This issue reminds me of Jesus’ warning to the Disciples… be worried about the Pharisees (don’t remember if He included the Sadducees) for they are blind leading the blind ; they not only refuse to enter but also keep others from entering into the Kingdom of God–paraphrased.

As it was cited, in Ezekiel 18 we find Yahweh reprimanding and correcting Israel (I want that no one should die…); Yahweh did not set rules and bounderies to entrap mankind; on the contrary, the Sacred Writings and Sacred Traditions were instituted to maximize our growth and Salvation.

True, Jesus speaks of the necessity of Baptism and He teaches Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader, that we must be born again–Jesus emphasized that we must be born of water and Spirit; later He chastises the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law for rejectomg John’s baptism: i.e.: they are rejecting God’s Commandment!

Yet, how can an infant/child reject Yahweh’s Command?

Would a Loving God who whishes that none should perish would exact such a rigid condition on the Salvation of infants? The Holy Scriptures are not meant to curve Yahweh’s Omnipotence but to assist us in our trek to Salvation!

Remember what Christ told His Disciples when they attempted to keep the curious children away? (paraphrased: “…let the children come to Me for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” St. Matthew 19:13-14). Either Jesus was talking about a realm of little people or He was referring to their innocense and their open mindedness and trusting hearts!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[rwoehmke]

Is there any doubt that Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and many other men and women who predated the birth of Jesus are in heaven? Since the practice of " Baptizing the Dead" predated the founding of Mormonism when were they Baptized?

I have a friend who was a deacon in the Catholic Church. He left to become a Mormon just about a year ago. I asked him what in the world possessed him to convert. When he explained about what Mormonism taught he told me a number of things that require a great deal of gullibility to accept or believe. And people have difficulty accepting the idea of the real presence!