Baptism: is it required to be baptized in water?

K....
You are on the right track but, we can be more definitive...by scripture;

The thief on the cross was not under the new covenant requiring baptism. Christ had not died yet and the NC was not in to effect yet. So that point can not be used as a negative against baptism.

There are a handful of alleged proof texts that certain people use to try and prove that baptism is required for salvation, yet after a careful examination of each of those texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, though they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation.

In other words, those texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

These Gentiles in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the spiritual gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit after believing the gospel but before being water baptized (Acts 10:44-47).

This observation needs to be balanced, however, by the fact that baptism was not considered an "optional extra" for these Gentiles; it was a command (Acts 10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ for salvation (Acts 10:43).

m...,

Please explain the two ......dangling participles.

Which alleged proof texts would you like to discuss? I’m curious, which church do you attend?

m...,

The ones you refer...you will need all of them....and then some...I am sure....if it is your intent to prove baptism is not required.

For starters see link below and you did not answer my question about your church affiliation.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...d-baptismal-regeneration-refuted.98418/page-4

No sort of defence is needed for preaching outdoors, but it would take a very long argument to prove that a man who has never preached beyond the walls of his meeting house has done his duty."

The post came out all wrong. It was supposed to start with acts 1:5 about baptisim with/in water being replaced by baptisim of the holy spirit. I acknowlege public baptisim as a testimony to the world but the baptisim later in acts refers to that of the spirit. Being water baptized in church is rather meaning less as a testimony because the world dosn't go to church. It's like hiding a lamp under a basket!

Go to the park, beach, lake, river where people can see! General Booth founder of the Salvation army satd; "No sort of defence is needed for preaching outdoors, but it would take a very long argument to prove that a man who has never preached beyond the walls of his meeting house has done his duty."[/QUOTE]

m...,
Didn't see the question.
Non-Denominational.

m...,
Sprinkling is not baptism. Babies have no need to be baptized until age of accountability...10-12.

Let's stick with scripture...not writings.

I don’t support sprinkling (I support immersion) and I also don’t support infant baptism.

Nor can babies repent of sin.

You can find a short study Here on baptism in water that you should find helpful...

JB,
Thanks for the reply and attached study.

In light of the title I chose..., I think my posting created an impression that I was questioning the need for baptism. Actually my intention was mainly to clarify that the thief on the cross simply was living under a different covenant than we are.

Baptism is the mechanism God chose to give us that allows us to be a part of Jesus' death and resurrection. I'm not sure why He chose this but he even prophesied that He would send a messenger (John the baptist) to establish His (the messiah's) way before His (the messiah's, Jesus') arrival.

Through baptism, we join with Jesus in the benefits of His death. (Romans 6:3-6) If we submit to being "planted together in the likeness of his death" we have right to be part of his resurrection. No planting = no right to be part of his resurrection.

One benefit of his death was that he was able to separate himself from the sins that were upon him... Not his own sins, but the sins of the world that were placed on him by the Father. He carried those sins down into death. But when he rose from the dead, those sins couldn't follow him back up. If he didn't die, those sins would have remained upon him... just as our sins remain on us if we refuse to submit to baptism.

Baptism is indeed a necessity, and it is very important that it be done in the way that is acceptable to God, regardless how many or few people choose that way.

I'd like to discuss what name ought to be used, but will reserve that for a following post. Feel free to prompt me if I dilly-dally.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Preston39,

Thanks for the post. Please forgive me for taking so long to reply.

I'm actually a firm believer in baptism for remission of sins as a new testament reality. Some use the thief on the cross as a new covenant example. My post was mainly to clarify the the thief on the cross was actually under the OLD covenant, rather than the new.

And although I think it possible that the thief died before Jesus, I personally don't see that as provable by the scriptures. (even though I would be open to the idea).

One reason I think Jesus died before the 2 thieves is John 19:31-33.

John 19:31-33 KJV
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. [32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. [33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

The Jews were wanting the crucifixions to be complete so the bodies could be removed and buried before the sabbath. The method of facilitating a faster death was to break the legs of the crucified so they could no longer support their weight...which restricts the lungs, and causes suffocation. This was done to both of the others, but not to Jesus because it was apparent that he was already dead. ...which leads me to believe Jesus actually died before either of the other two. (Notice it doesn't say that either of the other two were dead already.)

For people who are dead-set on believing the doctrine that states that the new covenant began immediately upon Jesus' death, this would cause a problem. In fact, I used to see this as a problem myself. But I refused to turn a blind eye to what those scriptures appeared to be saying. And I realized that any doctrine taught by man could be wrong... So I took it to prayer to ask for a clearer understanding.

What happened is that God began to show me that the new covenant did NOT come into full effect at the moment Jesus died. For one thing, Jesus hadn't completed his necessary tasks.... like resurrecting, further instructing his disciples, and departing from them to "go unto my Father" John 14:12 (I'm guessing that you'd agree that 'going down into death' was not the same as 'going to his Father'). And the new covenant promises were contingent on him going unto his Father (John 16:7)...so he MUST complete these additional tasks before the new covenant could take effect... which is also why the outpouring of the Holy Ghost didn't happen until Acts chapter 2 (because he was still here until the end of Acts chapter 1)


That's why I presented an argument that the necessary ingredients for new testament salvation were not yet complete at the time the thief died on the cross...regardless of whether he died before or after Jesus.

I hope that was helpful...and hopefully interesting.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

.
● John 3:5 . . I tell you the truth: No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born
of water and the Spirit.

I have a couple of suggestions as to how someone interested might comply with Jesus'
prerequisite to enter the kingdom.

● John 4:10-14 . . Jesus answered her: If you knew the gift of God and who it is that
asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living
water.

. . . Sir; the woman said; you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can
you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well
and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?

. . . Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever
drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in
him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

If Jesus would give that no-account woman living water just for the asking, then I think
it's safe to assume that he would grant the same to everybody just for the asking.

There's more.

● John 7:37-39 . . Jesus stood and said in a loud voice: If anyone is thirsty, let him
come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of
living water will flow from within him. By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who
believed in him were later to receive.

The word "anyone" has to include everybody or language and grammar serve no useful
purpose.

So, I suggest finding a private moment and, speaking aloud, pray and ask Jesus if you
could have the living water about which he spoke with that woman, and also have the
Spirit about which he shouted in Jerusalem.
_

Infant baptism isn't the same as regular baptism. I'm part of a Methodist church where infants can be baptized. But it is more or less just a tradition where both parents are promising in front of the Pastor and church that they will parent the child in Christ and the church as a witness must also help the parents.

The child has another actual baptism once they accept Christ.

No.

Please share scripture indicating the need for water baptism ceased.