Water baptism--required for salvation?

[Ħ]

A genuine question as I research this topic.  Right now I'm thinking no, but can change if proof is shown.

Also inquiring on the mode of baptism (i.e. infant, sprinkling, submerging).

So....give it to me.

[bosk1]

Yes.  More later when I have time (unless Yesh, FW, or somebody else gets to it before me).

[Seventh Son]

I'm not religious, so take my words with a grain of salt

But from what I understand, Water baptism is a symbolic ritual representing someone being "reborn" through Christ (Water symbolizes life, and I suppose the cleansing of one's sins).

That being said, I don't personally believe in salvation nor Christianity, so I say no

But from my experiences with Southern Baptism it is typically said to be a requirement, yes.

So take that however you decide to.

[Ħ]

Thanks guys.  (By the way, it would be great to hear propenents from both sides, so I can decide for myself.  Not to start a debate, although that might inevitably happen.)

The reason I ask is because from what I can see there are three groups:
1) Faith + Baptism = saved
2) Faith = saved, then baptism as a sign of obedience (or outward expression, whatever)
3) Faith alone w/o Baptism = saved

Aaaand, I don't wanna be in the wrong category.  Although, getting baptized would not violate 1 or 2, since 3 is kind of exclusive.  But I suppose that if 3 argues for eternal security, I could weasel my way into all three categories...

[Seventh Son]

Thanks guys.  (By the way, it would be great to hear propenents from both sides, so I can decide for myself.  Not to start a debate, although that might inevitably happen.)

The reason I ask is because from what I can see there are three groups:
1) Faith + Baptism = saved
2) Faith = saved, then baptism as a sign of obedience (or outward expression, whatever)
3) Faith alone w/o Baptism = saved

Aaaand, I don't wanna be in the wrong category.  Although, getting baptized would not violate 1 or 2, since 3 is kind of exclusive.  But I suppose that if 3 argues for eternal security, I could weasel my way into all three categories...

Well it all depends. There are many sects of Christianity, and I'm sure some don't have baptism as a requirement for salvation while others do. I guess it all depends on what makes the most sense to you.

[bosk1]

For starters, until I can type a detailed response, for recommended reading:

Mark 16:16
Matthew 28:18-20
Acts 2:38, 8:26-38
Rom 6:1-5
1 Pet 3:21

[Ħ]

Not to be rude or anything, and certainly not to derail from the topic, but as a side note....

In my ESV it says that the verse in Mark 16 isn't in the originals.  

Do you think we should use it to answer this question?  It could be corrupted by early doctrinal fallacies.

Edit: Just got your PM.  I don't mean to sound uptight or impatient, so take your time.  Would rather get a proper detailed answer than a hasty one.  Cheers! 

[sirbradford117]

Yes.  More later when I have time (unless Yesh, FW, or somebody else gets to it before me).

Go for it bosky.  I don't have time either...

[bosk1]

In my ESV it says that the verse in Mark 16 isn't in the originals.   

1.  Props for using ESV.
2.  I think saying it isn't in the "originals" isn't exactly accurate.  It isn't in many of the earliest transcripts that we have available today.  If you are of the mind that it should be off the table because it is not in those earlier transcripts, that's fine.  I don't think that passage is necessary for the discussion.

[j]

Obligatory Disclaimer: I haven't considered myself a Christian for a while now, but when I was, I used to be really into studying theology, Christian history/doctrine, etc.  Either way, if you'd like to disregard my opinion because of it, you're welcome to. 

In general, I think the answer to the OP question is yes.  I seem to recall quite a few places in the NT that suggest it, and virtually none that strongly suggest otherwise (that is, without some seriously "creative" exegesis).

@ the OP: I admire your attitude toward this (and other, I assume) doctrine.  The openness to learning and hearing new perspectives, and the willingness to change one's position if presented with the appropriate evidence, are attitudes that I find nearly absent from many Christian circles.

At any rate (not directed at anyone in particular, but it probably applies to most Christians), I think there's something fundamentally misguided about approaching Christianity with the goal of finding a checklist of things one needs to do to "get saved" (terminology I always hated as a Christian).  Not only do I think it's damn near impossible to do, it also seems like the wrong motivation, thus missing the point entirely.

-J

[Ħ]

Thanks j.

Just so you know, I was joking in my second post about finding the right "checklist" to salvation.  Although, all things considered, where an individual spends eternity is kind of important, so I would like to know if I can.

I mean, I would like to be saved.  I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.  And if I am already saved, I sure would like assurance so I'm not biting my nails in anticipation the rest of my life.

Of course, I mean no offense to anyone by talking about salvation according to the Bible.  This is a topic about Christianity from a Bible-believing viewpoint, after all. 

Anywayyyy....I suppose this post is not really topic-related, but I'm kind of just stalling until bosk replies.  That said, if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.

[j]

Thanks j.

Just so you know, I was joking in my second post about finding the right "checklist" to salvation.  Although, all things considered, where an individual spends eternity is kind of important, so I would like to know if I can.

I mean, I would like to be saved.  I don't think there's anything really wrong with that.

Absolutely, I agree.  It's kind of a paradox, because it's obviously of the utmost importance, but if you're only trying to live according to Jesus' teachings to avoid eternal damnation or get yourself into heaven, your motives aren't pure.  Human nature makes it tough to separate them.

And if I am already saved, I sure would like assurance so I'm not biting my nails in anticipation the rest of my life.

I don't think this type of doctrine ("eternal security", OSAS, whatever) has any place in Christian theology.  But it comes up in most threads on Christianity, and I won't address it here.

-J

[sirbradford117]

... if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.

I would like to read this input as well.  My understanding of Catholic teaching is that baptism is required, and I'd like to see how some who disagree refute verses like John 3:5.

[Ħ]

... if anyone believes you don't need to get baptized, I would love your input as well.

I would like to read this input as well.  My understanding of Catholic teaching is that baptism is required, and I'd like to see how some who disagree refute verses like John 3:5.

I'm not the only one who has seen positions like this, am I?  I used to go to a megachurch where they taught that baptism was just a public declaration of you having already gotten saved.  I never got biblical justification for that teaching, but I know there's gotta be someone that at least knows what it is.

And if no one steps up, would someone explain it if they know the doctrine, even though they don't believe it?

[William Wallace]

I'll try. People who say you have to be baptized in order to be saved have the relationship between faith and works confused. We're saved purely because of God's grace, not because of anything we do (see John 3:16, 18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:1). The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.

Let's go with John 3:5 for starters. People say it refers to baptism, but the context suggest that the verse has little to do with baptism as a requirement for salvation. For one, how would Nicodemus have understood what Jesus was referring to? For another, Jews would have understood the "born of water" phrase to be a metaphor. There is a good summary of the argument here:

The correct interpretation of this verse is found in light of the intimate connection of water, spirit, and cleansing in Judaism. As Beasley-Murray observes, "The conjunction of water and Spirit in eschatological hope is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness." This motif is found in Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Similar sentiments are found elsewhere in Jewish literature...

*Waits for bosk to write a Ph.D. thesis in response.

[sneakyblueberry]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." 

Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day?  No.

If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven?  I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no.  I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.

[William Wallace]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." 

Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day?  No.

If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven?  I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no.  I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.

A good point. I think we tend to get caught up in the rituals and forget about the foundations of our faith.

[Ħ]

Thank you both for your input. 

William Wallace, I have heard teachings on that verse in Ezekiel that this was the process of how Israel was to become a kingdom of priests.  There are two steps to becoming a priest: washing with water, and annointing with oil.  I have heard that water baptism is the the nationwide washing, and that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the annointing, since oil is a type of the Spirit.  Although, it is interesting because I think in Ezekiel the washing is done by sprinkling (hence the reason why I asked the mode of baptism in my original post).

If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven?  I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no.  I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.

This is a paradox I am interested in an answer to as well.  I think the typical response would be that God would understand that your intention was to get water baptized, and have mercy, but I don't see any support for that claim, especially if the washing + annointing thing is true.

[j]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

Does it?  Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google.  Hence being a KJV.

But the point stands.  Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.

Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day?  No.

If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven?  I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no.  I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.

I definitely agree with your conclusion.  But everything Jesus did, he did for a reason.  Many of the "rituals" he instituted aren't meant to be empty "going through the motions" type things.  Some are meant to be symbols or reminders of important facets of the faith, others I think are supposed to carry some kind of "spiritual" weight.

My point is, I agree that God is probably not so rigid that he would condemn a person to hell who converted on their deathbed and wasn't able to be baptized.  But just because he might make an exception if it's called for, does that mean baptism is unimportant or unnecessary in general?

The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.

I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the scripture behind this, but yet again the ridiculous notion of salvation being some kind of an irreversible one-time experience during one's life, and everything that necessarily follows from that belief (especially the weird dichotomy of faith and works), will seriously muddy the water here.  I have no idea how this doctrine made it into mainstream Christianity.

-J

[William Wallace]

The works we do after becoming saved, including baptism, are simply out of obedience. We will do them if we are saved, but we don't do them to become saved.

I don't really want to get into a huge discussion about the scripture behind this, but yet again the ridiculous notion of salvation being some kind of an irreversible one-time experience during one's life, and everything that necessarily follows from that belief (especially the weird dichotomy of faith and works), will seriously muddy the water here.  I have no idea how this doctrine made it into mainstream Christianity.

-J

Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience. Anyway, what's the correct view of salvation? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the doctrine I described is some kind of later alteration of Jesus' teachings?

[Ħ]

He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.

It does have deal with the issue of salvation, but this thread is about a specific aspect of salvation that has nothing to do with OSAS.  After this issue is wrapped up, I might start a thread on that, too.  (Or you can, if you want.)  But, it is to my understanding that that issue has been hammered to death on the P/R forums.

[William Wallace]

He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.

I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.

[j]

Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience.

Agree.  I think we just disagree on what exactly that conversion experience does.  What if, after the conversion, a person doesn't live a life of virtue?  Will God still accept them into heaven?  Did they ever really become a Christian?  Or what if, before someone converts, they do good deeds?  Does that mean nothing to God, who loves all things good?

The most consistent biblical view of faith and works as I understand it is a "both/and" scenario.  Faith is obviously necessary, but it is not sufficient.  Works are necessary, but they do not score you points toward "earning" salvation or whatever.  But without them, salvation cannot be attained.

Whether or not a person becomes more inclined to do good works after becoming a Christian, I don't know.  But I'm skeptical.

He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.

I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.

I apologize.  The view of faith and works that you hold (coupled with the way you referred to "getting saved" as a singular event) *usually* goes hand in hand with OSAS, eternal security, etc.  My mistake.

Anyway, what's the correct view of salvation? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the doctrine I described is some kind of later alteration of Jesus' teachings?

Don't get me wrong, I have no clue what the "correct" view of salvation is.  As for the doctrine you described, I apparently misunderstood it.  But there is plenty of evidence that OSAS and all that are very recent phenomena.

-J

[William Wallace]

Not following your criticism. Faith is an unending commitment but the conversion is a one-time experience.

Agree.  I think we just disagree on what exactly that conversion experience does.  What if, after the conversion, a person doesn't live a life of virtue?  Will God still accept them into heaven?  Did they ever really become a Christian?  Or what if, before someone converts, they do good deeds?  Does that mean nothing to God, who loves all things good?

If they don't follow Christ after accepting salvation, then they haven't really committed, have they? Doing good deeds is irrelevant to accepting salvation, so far as I can tell. But after the fact is a completely different story.

The most consistent biblical view of faith and works as I understand it is a "both/and" scenario.  Faith is obviously necessary, but it is not sufficient.  Works are necessary, but they do not score you points toward "earning" salvation or whatever.  But without them, salvation cannot be attained.

It's easy to get lost in semantics during these types of discussions, but I think I agree. The works are an expression of the inward change that has taken place; you decide to follow Christ and then you do. My only beef is with the Church of Christ and other denominations who insist on a certain act as a means of attaining salvation. There are many verses that be can made to support that view, but I think there's much more textual evidence that can't.

He's saying that he doesn't subscribe the the doctrine of Once-Saved, Always-Saved doctrine.

I don't either. Didn't mean to suggest I do.

I apologize.  The view of faith and works that you hold (coupled with the way you referred to "getting saved" as a singular event) *usually* goes hand in hand with OSAS, eternal security, etc.  My mistake.

No worries. I'm not sure how, but apparently I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest that Christians are OSAS. I believe that once you accept Christ being a Christian is a conscious effort.

[yeshaberto]

I love the analogy of a wedding:

you meet, begin building a relationship, fall in love, forsake all others and commit one to the other, make a commitment to marriage and then the wedding ceremony.  I think the biblical picture of baptism (lit immersion/dip, btw) is the wedding ceremony.  It isn't a checklist anymore than a wedding ceremony is a checklist.  It is the culmination of an entire process and is a physical demonstration of something much deeper.  In the case of baptism, it is a demonstration of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ/us.

PS...welcome brotherh

[Ħ]

Thanks dude.  Appreciate the welcome. 

So, when you believe, that's like getting engaged, and when you get baptized, that's like putting on the wedding ring?

And forgive me for being blind, but are you saying yes or no?  I can't figure it out.

[yeshaberto]

I think the biblical picture is not a "this represents that" as much as it is a process.  as mentioned, you can easily point to other verses that state that belief is a part of salvation, or confession or repentance, etc. 
Two people who are in love don't look at the wedding as we are "required" to do it, they look at it as the fulfillment and capstone of their love.
In any case, just as two people who do not go thru the wedding ceremony are merely living together, I think immersion is a key part of the process of our marriage to Christ.  So, ultimately I would say yes.  Scripture is emphatically clear that immersion plays a fundamental role in the process.  My question to someone (in the face of innumerable texts) is why not?

However, when we turn it into a cold, legalistic act devoid of its profound meaning, we have missed the point. 

[Ħ]

I totally follow you.  So the heart has to be in the act, as well.  Following from that logic, if a person purposes in his heart to get baptized, but tragically passes away before he is able, he is still saved.  Would you agree with that?

[yeshaberto]

I totally follow you.  So the heart has to be in the act, as well.  Following from that logic, if a person purposes in his heart to get baptized, but tragically passes away before he is able, he is still saved.  Would you agree with that?

I am hesitant on hypotheticals, and that judgment would be in the hands of God, but I would think that it would be reasonable to think that God would look at their heart...
reminds me of Hezekiah when the people hadn't practiced the passover for years and were unclean and wrong date, but Hezekiah prayed that God would look at their heart and overlook their legalities, and the text implies that God did.  Jesus uses the same analogy when the pharisees were mad because the disciples picked grain from the fields on the sabbath and Jesus spoke of David eating the shewbread (and some other thing I can't remember) and God looked at the heart

[Fiery Winds]

I think a lot of confusion arises with the phrase "Calling on the name of the Lord".  I know a lot of people who interpret that as praying the Sinner's Prayer, or asking Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior, etc.  If we look at the text, we can find out exactly what it means.

First, Peter tells us in Acts 2:21;36-38

21And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Quoting the Prophet Joel)

So how do we call upon the name of the Lord?

36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

 37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So first we acknowledge that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, repent and then are baptized for forgiveness of sins, so that we may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Salvation).

Then with Paul we find out that not even repenting and praying to God is enough to wash away our sins, or is equivalent to "calling on the name of the Lord".

Acts 9:10-12

10Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." 11And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."

So he had a miraculous experience on the road to Damascus, was struck blind, and is praying to God.  Let's continue to Acts 22 for more info on what happened.

Acts 22:12-16

12"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

If baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, what else would have saved Paul?  He was praying to God, obviously moved by the experience.  He fasted for three whole days.  He was a devout Jew, well versed in the Law of Moses.  He had every other base covered, but Ananias still asked, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." 

[sneakyblueberry]

No.  My bible says "whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

Does it?  Mine says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Ok, so it's not *my* bible per se, it was the first e-bible that came up on Google.  Hence being a KJV.

But the point stands.  Christianity, or even simply the Christian concept of salvation, cannot be summed up with a single verse.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't say 'whoever is baptised with water in my name will be saved'.  The christian concept of salvation centres on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and that this sacrifice is what brings salvation, not water baptism.

Did Jesus quickly jump off of the cross to baptise the theif so he could be with him in paradise that day?  No.

If I gave my life to Jesus and was spiritually born again and then died a second later without being baptised in water, would I still go to Heaven?  I don't know. But I don't think God is so ritualistic that our salvation depends on it, no.  I think humans have made Him out to be though, for sure.

I definitely agree with your conclusion.  But everything Jesus did, he did for a reason.  Many of the "rituals" he instituted aren't meant to be empty "going through the motions" type things.  Some are meant to be symbols or reminders of important facets of the faith, others I think are supposed to carry some kind of "spiritual" weight.

My point is, I agree that God is probably not so rigid that he would condemn a person to hell who converted on their deathbed and wasn't able to be baptized.  But just because he might make an exception if it's called for, does that mean baptism is unimportant or unnecessary in general?

Baptism is an important part of the Christian walk of course, but by no means is it required for salvation, which is what the OP is asking.  Baptism is a symbol of the 'old man' (which Paul talks about in Romans) dying, giving birth to new creation in Christ Jesus.  When you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, the old sinful nature is put to death; baptism is both a symbol of that and a public declaration of your intent to follow Jesus with the rest of your life.

I would think that it would be reasonable to think that God would look at their heart...

I agree wholeheartedly.  We too often attempt to put God in a box.  I for one believe that God is not bound by anything other than that he is holy and sinless and can not tolerate evil.  If a person dies who loves God with every fibre of their being and accepts the atonement Jesus gives for their sins, then the question of whether or not they have been baptised with water is irrelevant.  God's grace is enough.

[wolfking]

What do you guys think of this.  I'm not very religious so I may sound like a complete n00b, but I'm cool with that.

I run public swimming pools, 3 of them.  In the 5 years I've ran them in the summer I have had various church groups coming in that do baptisms in the water.  This has always confused me and never really asked them the reasoning behind it.  Since they are customers, I really have no problem them doing this and wouldn't want to ask anything that may be offensive, but they are always friendly and pleasant.

These pools are water disinfected by sodium hypochlorite (liquid chlorine) and also uses Carbon Dioxide to control Ph and alkalinity levels.  So, is this bizarre, or is the water type not that important for this practice?

[El JoNNo]

The chlorine just makes it more clensyer.

[yorost]

I do not believe baptism by water is necessary for salvation, too stringent on a physical form.  Various Christians don't believe in the necessity of water, as well.  For instance, the Catholic Church holds anyone never made aware of Christ in life or anyone that wishes they were baptized at death, can find salvation.  The way I remember it being explained as a rule of thumb is that anyone that would except Jesus upon being shown the truth after death will be saved.  ...basically a big wide open door with no full explanation of requirements.

No water equals no heaven is like Old Testament God speaking.  Sort of silly and makes God out to be a total ass.

On salvation the Catholic Church and other Christian divisions have made significant pushes over the last 50 years(maybe longer for non-Catholics) to leave archaic exclusive salvation teachings.  That being you don't have to be a part of them, or even of the same family of religions, to have a chance at salvation.  Obviously, any direction like that cannot require water baptism as an absolute.  This is a more reasonable approach if you ask me, we're most likely all wrong anyways.

[William Wallace]

Here's a good article that addresses most of the arguments I've ever heard in support the baptism saves idea, most of which will likely be brought up in this thread. I like the summary at the beginning: baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to become saved.