The Necessity of Baptism

[Crimson_Seraph]

Just so I get this clearly. Does the Catholic Church teach that a person can’t go to heaven at all unless he’s Baptized? Like if a person has a death bed conversion and can’t be Baptized does he go to heaven or hell (purgatory whatever)?

 

[NotWorthy]

Just so I get this clearly. Does the Catholic Church teach that a person can’t go to heaven at all unless he’s Baptized? Like if a person has a death bed conversion and can’t be Baptized does he go to heaven or hell (purgatory whatever)?

The Church doesn’t (nor can She) make a rule like that. She teaches, though, that the normative means for a person to get to heaven includes baptism.

As evidenced by the good thief on the cross, there are exceptions, for all things are possible with God!

 

[Seeking12]

Also with Colossians 2:12
“You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

This ties baptism with Christ’s resurrection … the divine life.

Is this water baptism? Does it say that? No, this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not the same. Just like circumcision of the heart was the real circumcision the physical was a symbol of the real; an outward expression. To say God saves by water baptism is to say God changes, which would be a grave error.

 

[Seeking12]

The Church doesn’t (nor can She) make a rule like that. She teaches, though, that the normative means for a person to get to heaven includes baptism.

As evidenced by the good thief on the cross, there are exceptions, for all things are possible with God!

I believe the council of Trent had something in regards to that, but I don’t where to find that; I haven’t really tried.

 

[Seeking12]

The underlined is an interesting statement. If this is true, why was there a need for Jesus?

You need to read the Psalms; this would help quite a bit. The OT look forward to the cross, the NT looks back at the cross. They both look to the savior.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is this water baptism? Does it say that? No, this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not the same. Just like circumcision of the heart was the real circumcision the physical was a symbol of the real; an outward expression. To say God saves by water baptism is to say God changes, which would be a grave error.

Catholics teach that Baptism is “water and the spirit”. I think you are separating the two. Although there are non-sacramental baptisms, a true Baptism (of water and the spirit) is Sacramental.

 

[ncgolf]

Is this water baptism? Does it say that? No, this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not the same. Just like circumcision of the heart was the real circumcision the physical was a symbol of the real; an outward expression.

If you followed the Apostolic Tradition you would not make a comment like that. The Apostolic Tradition has always been a water baptism … that’s what the rite of Baptism is.

You read the Bible as a history guide … Catholics look at it as the Word of God on paper and the Word of God in action (Apostolic Tradition). The Apostles baptized anyone and everyone … we still do it … sadly this practice by the Church has been eliminated by well meaning but ill informed men.

To say God saves by water baptism is to say God changes, which would be a grave error.

What do you mean God changes … what is happening here is you have been ill taught and do not understand fully what the Bible teaches … you are well meaning but ill informed.

 

[GJx86]

Is this water baptism? Does it say that? No, this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not the same.

I don’t think anyone in this thread understands how you’ve come to make this distinction, since Our Lord talks about Baptism of “water and the Spirit.”

I don’t want to be rude, but it seems like the definition you are using is, “If a passage would support the saving effects of water Baptism, then it must not actually be talking about water Baptism.” That’s just not a premise that any of the Catholics in this thread accept. Do you have any support for this claim other than, well, that the alternative doesn’t fit the conclusion you claim is true?

Sorry if I’ve missed your reasoning here, but this discussion really can’t continue without it.

 

[Seeking12]

Catholics teach that Baptism is “water and the spirit”. I think you are separating the two. Although there are non-sacramental baptisms, a true Baptism (of water and the spirit) is Sacramental.

**You may be correct on that; the water baptism is certainly different than receiving the Holy Spirit and we know from practical experience that a majority of people that were/are water baptized have not received the Holy Spirit. Why is that?

Water baptism is not the cause of “justification”. NT water baptism is portrayed as a physical symbol of our death and resurrection with Jesus Christ. As we go down into the water we are symbolizing our death with Christ and coming out we are symbolizing our resurrection and new life with Christ. Just as circumcision was a physical symbol for the Jews, but the real circumcision is that of the heart, the spiritual. Likewise the receiving of the Holy Spirit is our spiritual baptism.

From a biblical perspective, baptism follows salvation by faith. (see Acts 2:41; 8:13 & 18:8 - there are more)

Did God bother to mention 7 sacraments in His word?**

 

[Seeking12]

If you followed the Apostolic Tradition you would not make a comment like that. The Apostolic Tradition has always been a water baptism … that’s what the rite of Baptism is.

You read the Bible as a history guide … Catholics look at it as the Word of God on paper and the Word of God in action (Apostolic Tradition). The Apostles baptized anyone and everyone … we still do it … sadly this practice by the Church has been eliminated by well meaning but ill informed men. What do you mean God changes … what is happening here is you have been ill taught and do not understand fully what the Bible teaches … you are well meaning but ill informed.

**How do you explain away Pauls statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17?“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

How can you explain away infant baptism? What happens to an infant that was not baptized and dead? Limbo??? Why are people sent to hell and how could that answer apply to an infant?
If God does not change the way He saves men and no one was saved via water baptism; how to you reconcile that?

You are correct about one thing; there is not much room for discussion if you teach and practice that which is contrary to Scripture. Cornelius was justified prior to Baptism, the thief was not baptized, Paul said he did not come to baptize but too preach the gospel…how to you reconcile all that with your teaching?**

 

[Seeking12]

If you followed the Apostolic Tradition you would not make a comment like that. The Apostolic Tradition has always been a water baptism … that’s what the rite of Baptism is.

You read the Bible as a history guide … Catholics look at it as the Word of God on paper and the Word of God in action (Apostolic Tradition). The Apostles baptized anyone and everyone … we still do it … sadly this practice by the Church has been eliminated by well meaning but ill informed men. What do you mean God changes … what is happening here is you have been ill taught and do not understand fully what the Bible teaches … you are well meaning but ill informed.

What do you mean the Bible as a history guide?
That is your opinion that I have been “ill taught”, but I will not condescend to personal opinion. You all seem to be making the claim that a religious body, the Church, is infallible; I’m I seeing this or am I reading too much into these threads?

 

[Seeking12]

Randy_Carson:
1 Corinthians 12:28-30
28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tonguesa]? Do all interpret?

Paul did not see his primary responsibility as baptizing, but this does not mean that he did not consider it important since he himself had been baptized IMMEDIATELY upon hearing the gospel. It is important because it is an act of obedience to the Lord and not something Paul or any true saint would take lightly.

And yes, he did baptize a few people.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. ** I know Paul did baptize, but he is clearly separating in the mind of the reader that 1) people misunderstood water baptism and 2) he was sent to preach, because by hearing, then one can come to an understanding which leads to salvation.
Would it make any sense at all for Paul to say that if it was so closely knit to salvation?**
Paul preached and left the baptizing to others.

Baptism Saves

Romans 6:3-4
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
This is clearly distinguishing the water versus the baptism by the Spirit; I don’t know why you can’t see that since Peter is clearly showing it is not the water “removal of dirt”, but the Spiritual. The only explanation I have for people not understanding is what Scripture teaches, but is is truly amazing.

Notice that the OT imagery of Noah (and the Israelites passing through the Red Sea) prefigure the water baptism of the NT.

Yeah, Baptism now saves you.
If you believe in your heart that water baptism saves you, then you don’t believe.

 

[NotWorthy]

**You may be correct on that; the water baptism is certainly different than receiving the Holy Spirit and we know from practical experience that a majority of people that were/are water baptized have not received the Holy Spirit. Why is that? **How do you know that? I don’t accept your premise. Too many people equate a feeling of elation with being “filled with the Holy Spirit”. The problem often is, what happens when the elation dries up.

**
Water baptism is not the cause of “justification”. NT water baptism is portrayed as a physical symbol of our death and resurrection with Jesus Christ. As we go down into the water we are symbolizing our death with Christ and coming out we are symbolizing our resurrection and new life with Christ. Just as circumcision was a physical symbol for the Jews, but the real circumcision is that of the heart, the spiritual. Likewise the receiving of the Holy Spirit is our spiritual baptism.**True - Water Baptism is not the cause of “justification”. Christ is the cause of our justification. Repenting and believing in the Gospel is our half of the bargain (for lack of a better term). Through water Baptism, Christ promises to send His Holy Spirit to us, and this happens in Baptism.

I have a feeling that you think that once the Spirit is received, it can’t be lost, which is why you have trouble with the Catholic teaching on Baptism.

** From a biblical perspective, baptism follows salvation by faith. (see Acts 2:41; 8:13 & 18:8 - there are more)**Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. It looks like we are being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Step 1. Repent
Step 2. Be Baptized.
Step 3. Your sins our forgiven.
Step 4. You receive the Holy Spirit.

Now, steps 3-4 are typically occurring at roughly the same time. I fail to see where you feel baptism is simply an outward sign of our salvation.

** Did God bother to mention 7 sacraments in His word?**

God trusted the Church. Did God bother to mention that baptism is simply a sign of our salvation? This argument is irrelevant.

 

[Seeking12]

I don’t think anyone in this thread understands how you’ve come to make this distinction, since Our Lord talks about Baptism of “water and the Spirit.” Show me! If you separate the two I agree; if you put them together, then show me.

I don’t want to be rude, but it seems like the definition you are using is, “If a passage would support the saving effects of water Baptism, then it must not actually be talking about water Baptism.” That’s just not a premise that any of the Catholics in this thread accept. Do you have any support for this claim other than, well, that the alternative doesn’t fit the conclusion you claim is true?

Sorry if I’ve missed your reasoning here, but this discussion really can’t continue without it.

 

[ncgolf]

That is your opinion that I have been “ill taught”, but I will not condescend to personal opinion.

The teachers are the Apostles … you were taught by someone, somehow … you did not reach all your conclusions on your own. If those did not teach as the Apostles … there erred in their teaching.

You all seem to be making the claim that a religious body, the Church, is infallible; I’m I seeing this or am I reading too much into these threads

In what other manner does the Word of God need to be communicated? Falliably? By you?

The topic of the thread is the Necessity of Baptism. You give your view, opine that we are in “grave error” and hope to move on, well no … “grave error” implies incorrect and impure teaching … this is not true … so you bring it on yourself when I respond … “you have been ill taught”. When you spout off against the Church you do this to all Catholics.

Myself and others have tried to articulate what the Catholic Church has taught and believed and practiced for 2000 years … and these were taught by the Apostles.

Your definition of Church and ours are different … you see the Church as an obstacle … a hinderance to a personal understanding of Scripture and means to salvation. We do not.

If you condemn us in “grave error” it is the Apostles you too condemn … since what Catholics practice today is no different than what the Apostles practiced 2000 years ago.

So if you wish personal opinion to be left out … then leave it out … Non.

 

[SyCarl]

I was curious about this as well.

Aquinas continues:

In other words: Water baptism is necessary if it is available, but in situations where someone lacked the opportunity to be baptized, martyrdom or sincere repentance can take its place.

If this isn’t what Aquinas held, then why didn’t he stop quoting Augustine and Cyprian after the word “heart”?

My reading of it is that Aquinas takes it farther than Augustine did.

 

[fbl9]

If you believe in your heart that water baptism saves you, then you don’t believe.

Don’t beleive what?
Seeeking 12"It is important because it is an act of obedience to the Lord,and not something Paul or any other saint would take lightly""…
Oh no one has do do something,it’s works,it’s works…an act of obedience to the Lord why would you do that?? it means you are doing a WORK,

Please Seeeking 12 if you are going say St.Paul is a saint address him as such then.

 

[pnewton]

****Where does Jesus tell us baptism is the normative means to enter into salvation? ****

Jesus covers this in John 3 in his message to Nicodemus. Peter covers it in his first address to the Jews after Pentacost.

OOPs, I see post 34 already mentioned these two.

 

[broski234]

Seeking12:
Hello, we have. John 3:5. Please take the time to actually read everyones post to you. This has been given to you. Here is just one that we can “show” you.

 

[Seeking12]

How do you know that? I don’t accept your premise. Too many people equate a feeling of elation with being “filled with the Holy Spirit”. The problem often is, what happens when the elation dries up.

Sounds like you are agreeing; Matthew 7:13-14 speaks of a group of religious people; many are on the wrong path, the few are on the right bath…what I’m saying is that from experience. most of these would have been baptized, but only a few actually and really receive the Holy Spirit. See what I’m saying?

NotWorthy:
True - Water Baptism is not the cause of “justification”. **So you disagree with your Church?**Christ is the cause of our justification. Repenting and believing in the Gospel is our half of the bargain (for lack of a better term).

NotWorthy:

Through water Baptism, Christ promises to send His Holy Spirit to us, and this happens in Baptism.

Where is that teaching of Jesus? On the contrary; justification will always precede water baptism for a true believer.

NotWorthy:

I have a feeling that you think that once the Spirit is received, it can’t be lost, which is why you have trouble with the Catholic teaching on Baptism.

**This is the teaching of God.
**

NotWorthy:
Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. It looks like we are being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Step 1. Repent
Step 2. Be Baptized.
Step 3. Your sins our forgiven.
Step 4. You receive the Holy Spirit.Ask yourself this; Does active verb repentance act on the active tense forgiveness or does the past tense verb baptized? You need to look at the tenses of each and in light of the biblical teaching of repentance, which is for forgiveness of sins. When put in the Greek construction the meaning of the text becomes even clearer, but as English speaking people; we must understand our own grammar to assist us in getting it correct. This is not a chronological formula is it?

NotWorthy:

Now, steps 3-4 are typically occurring at roughly the same time. I fail to see where you feel baptism is simply an outward sign of our salvation.

God trusted the Church. **It should be the other way around; shouldn’t it?**Did God bother to mention that baptism is simply a sign of our salvation? This argument is irrelevant.
It it the outward symbol of the inward faith; it cannot not save; if it did then God has changed from the OT to the NT;a new way of salvation. God does not and never will change the way people are saved.