Is Baptism necessary?

[LiLrEd]

My question is about baptism. I am a Chrisitian and have not been baptized. My mother still tells me she will make sure I get baptized at some point. But in my opinion if you have Jesus in your heart and soul, God will not put you in hell or not allow you in heaven. After all baptism was created by people, not God. I'd like your opinions. What would you do for your children?

 

[Shiranui117]

I would baptize my children. It's always been the custom of the Church, and it was commanded by Christ.

Matthew 28:19 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

If for no other reason, be baptized to follow Christ's example, for He was baptized.

Matthew 3:

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Also, in Acts, people were initiated into the Christian life through baptism:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also, Romans 6 gives very detailed reasons as to exactly why we should be baptized:

3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

And Galatians 3:22-28:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Through baptism, we are freed from sin and are clothed with Christ, being raised up to new life in Him.

Yes, there are exceptional cases where people receive the Holy Spirit outside of baptism. However, such cases are the exception, not the norm, and so it is better to be baptized than to gamble on the idea that you're still "covered." This is not to say that the unbaptized are damned, but to be fully initiated into the Christian life, why would you not be baptized, die to your old, sinful self, be cleansed of your sin, and begin your life anew in Christ?

Let me know if you want anything clarified or explained further

 

[Shiranui117]

Here's a great reason to baptize your kids early:

 

[heksesang]

I would baptize my children. It's always been the custom of the Church, and it was commanded by Christ.

Matthew 28:19 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

I just want to point out that the original of Matthew 28:19 (as cited by Eusebius) read:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
​

As you might notice, it contains no reference to baptism at all.

The baptism of water was an act of John the Baptist. And he stated that the baptism of Jesus was the one of the Holy Spirit and of fire:

"I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance. but he that cometh after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."
​

The baptism of Christ is not of water, but of belief. When you choose to believe in the Christ and follow his teachings, you become baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Although, for many people acts like the baptism of water might strengthen their faith and such have an effect on the baptism of Christ. But it's not a necessity, and you will know it yourself if this is something you should do. I have not been baptized by water because it has never felt like something I should do.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My question is about baptism. I am a Chrisitian and have not been baptized. My mother still tells me she will make sure I get baptized at some point. But in my opinion if you have Jesus in your heart and soul, God will not put you in hell or not allow you in heaven. After all baptism was created by people, not God. I'd like your opinions. What would you do for your children?

There is no need to wait for your mother, except for family reasons. Any priest or pastor will be happy to talk thing through with you and baptise you.

However Different Denominations have different forms of service and not all accept each others baptism.
A Trinitarian baptism is perhaps recognised by the most churches.

From a spiritual point of view, I am sure they all have equal validity before God.
Baptism, like taking Communion in the last supper, are the only two things Jesus taught as requirements.

 

[heksesang]

Baptism, like taking Communion in the last supper, are the only two things Jesus taught as requirements.

When did he say that it was a requirement?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I just want to point out that the original of Matthew 28:19 (as cited by Eusebius) read:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
​

As you might notice, it contains no reference to baptism at all.

A majority of Bibles, including the most recently revised NRSV. Include "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

The Didache ( the earliest training work for new converts from the Gentiles ) gives full details on Baptism (Didache 7:1 7:4) leading on to the prepatory fast (Didiche 8:1 leading on to the Lords Prayer (Didache 8:2) And the Eucharist (Didache 9:1 9:5) ending... " let no one eat or drink from your eucharist except those baptised in the name of the Lord.

Which makes it pretty clear what the earliest Chistian converts were taught and believed.

The Didache predates the Bible but not all of its contents.

 

[heksesang]

A majority of Bibles, including the most recently revised NRSV. Include "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

The Didache ( the earliest training work for new converts from the Gentiles ) gives full details on Baptism (Didache 7:1 7:4) leading on to the prepatory fast (Didiche 8:1 leading on to the Lords Prayer (Didache 8:2) And the Eucharist (Didache 9:1 9:5) ending... " let no one eat or drink from your eucharist except those baptised in the name of the Lord.

Which makes it pretty clear what the earliest Chistian converts were taught and believed.

The Didache predates the Bible but not all of its contents.

My point is that originally, Jesus did not command it. Even if they taught it. And the baptism of water isn't the baptism of Christ, that much is clear from the words of John.

 

[Shiranui117]

My point is that originally, Jesus did not command it. Even if they taught it. And the baptism of water isn't the baptism of Christ, that much is clear from the words of John.

I just want to point out that the original of Matthew 28:19 (as cited by Eusebius) read:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."
​

As you might notice, it contains no reference to baptism at all.

The baptism of water was an act of John the Baptist. And he stated that the baptism of Jesus was the one of the Holy Spirit and of fire:

"I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance. that cometh after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."
​

The baptism of Christ is not of water, but of belief. When you choose to believe in the Christ and follow his teachings, you become baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Although, for many people acts like the baptism of water might strengthen their faith and such have an effect on the baptism of Christ. But it's not a necessity, and you will know it yourself if this is something you should do. I have not been baptized by water because it has never felt like something I should do.

GAH, Terrywoodenpic beat me to the punch on this one! JK Terry, I ain't mad

Anyway, as he pointed out, the Didache predates a ton of stuff in the Bible, including the Epistles. It could've been written as early as 50 AD, which is even before the composition of the Four Gospels. This is WELL within the lifetime of all the Apostles, unless a couple of them got executed way early.

So yeah, regardless of whether the command of Trinitarian baptism was in the Gospels or not, it's a teaching given by Christ to the Apostles. Unless you want to argue that all the Apostles would allow a doctrine or a practice that didn't come from their Teacher, Jesus Christ.

And yes, before this gets into another debate about water baptism, water baptism was indeed connected to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have a couple debates about Baptism (and one about this very topic) in the Biblical Debates forum already, so if you want to continue this as an argument, I'd recommend taking it to a thread already dedicated to debating.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My point is that originally, Jesus did not command it. Even if they taught it. And the baptism of water isn't the baptism of Christ, that much is clear from the words of John.

I take it that you are a Bible literalist.

I would rather follow what people actually believed and did. The scripture is so very personal to the particular author ( all of whom seem to be unknown) that we can not be sure that the paticular group they represented, got things 100% right all the time.

The true purpose and style of baptism is certainy disputed, But I do not doubt that Jesus was baptised nor that we are requide to follow his example.



The Didache indicates that full immersion in flowing water is preferable but that if you did not have it.... ( Hot or cold)
Didache 7: "if you should not have either,
pour out water onto the head three times
in the name of the Father
and the Son
and the holy spirit"

This form was certainly in use for new converts up to (and beyond) the start of the third century.

Interestingly while they did believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit at that time , the "Trinity" as a "God head" had not been yet thought of.

 

[heksesang]

GAH, Terrywoodenpic beat me to the punch on this one! JK Terry, I ain't mad

Anyway, as he pointed out, the Didache predates a ton of stuff in the Bible, including the Epistles. It could've been written as early as 50 AD, which is even before the composition of the Four Gospels. This is WELL within the lifetime of all the Apostles, unless a couple of them got executed way early.

So yeah, regardless of whether the command of Trinitarian baptism was in the Gospels or not, it's a teaching given by Christ to the Apostles. Unless you want to argue that all the Apostles would allow a doctrine or a practice that didn't come from their Teacher, Jesus Christ.

And yes, before this gets into another debate about water baptism, water baptism was indeed connected to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We have a couple debates about Baptism (and one about this very topic) in the Biblical Debates forum already, so if you want to continue this as an argument, I'd recommend taking it to a thread already dedicated to debating.

I was just pointing out that the current verse about baptism in Matthew isn't the original. Adding more information is never bad in a discussion, that's what's it's all about.

And I just expressed my opinion about the baptism, I am not sure why we are trying to make this into a debate.

I take it that you are a Bible literalist.

I would rather follow what people actually believed and did. The scripture is so very personal to the particular author ( all of whom seem to be unknown) that we can not be sure that the paticular group they represented, got things 100% right all the time.

The true purpose and style of baptism is certainy disputed, But I do not doubt that Jesus was baptised nor that we are requide to follow his example.



The Didache indicates that full immersion in flowing water is preferable but that if you did not have it.... ( Hot or cold)
Didache 7: "if you should not have either,
pour out water onto the head three times
in the name of the Father
and the Son
and the holy spirit"

This form was certainly in use for new converts up to (and beyond) the start of the third century.

Interestingly while they did believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit at that time , the "Trinity" as a "God head" had not been yet thought of.

You used a verse about Jesus' command to make your point, I just thought that the fact that it wasn't the original command would be relevant information in case you didn't know it.

But I haven't read this Didache you talk about, I will have a look into that, sounds interesting.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I was just pointing out that the current verse about baptism in Matthew isn't the original. Adding more information is never bad in a discussion, that's what's it's all about.

And I just expressed my opinion about the baptism, I am not sure why we are trying to make this into a debate.


You used a verse about Jesus' command to make your point, I just thought that the fact that it wasn't the original command would be relevant information in case you didn't know it.

But I haven't read this Didache you talk about, I will have a look into that, sounds interesting.

The best book You can find on the subject is by Aaron Milavec. who has devoted most of his study to it.
"The Didache text, translation, analysis and commentary"
The Greek text is on alternate pages with the English on the opposite. It is easy enough to read. but he provides detailed notes an commentary,to give context and meaning.
He has a larger purely academic work on the same subject.

The full original Greek text was rediscovered in 1873 by an Greek orthodox Arch Bishop in Istanbul. prior to that only fragments were available.

It is certainly the most important document setting out the teaching of new recruits into the new Judo-Christian infant church.

I suppose it cuts across the bows of many modern church practises and later introduced dogma. But it give the true starting point of Christianity from the earliest days.

Strangely many Protestant Clergy have never seen a copy.

 

[Desert Snake]

My question is about baptism. I am a Chrisitian and have not been baptized. My mother still tells me she will make sure I get baptized at some point. But in my opinion if you have Jesus in your heart and soul, God will not put you in hell or not allow you in heaven. After all baptism was created by people, not God. I'd like your opinions. What would you do for your children?

Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that people should be baptized. In fact baptism seems more like what happened when someone was switching from some other faith to be a follower of Jesus, not a pre-requisite for Christians.
My opinion is that if you want to do it, go ahead, but it's not necessary.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that people should be baptized. In fact baptism seems more like what happened when someone was switching from some other faith to be a follower of Jesus, not a pre-requisite for Christians.
My opinion is that if you want to do it, go ahead, but it's not necessary.

There are several things to say about that view of baptism.
First... Jesus mostly taught by parable or example. the only scripture he ever knew or quoted was Jewish scripture.

Those he taught, even the disciples, were never with him all the time he was teaching, some were sent on other tasks.
Those stories and teachings that found their way into the Bible were incomplete by the nature of their witness. (no one witnessed every thing) Those that did witness individual teachings did not necessarily pass them to the eventual authors of the scriptures , not all these writings were later selected for inclusion in the bible.

Most modern study using the earliest available sources of Matthew 28 19 agree that the Baptismal quote is correct. This is confirmed in the teaching of a vast majority of Christian Churches.

There is new trend amongst some people describing them selves as "Christian" to deny this teaching.This trend seems to have started in the USA. It seems they are evolving a new Dogma.

It is clear from the Didache that Baptism was essential to the faith of the earliest Christian groups, members of which were undoubtedly around during Jesus mission on earth, and that of his disciples. Some would almost certainly have seen or heard him teach in person.

This alone would lead me to accept their teaching on the matter, over that of a modern 21st century interpretation.

 

[heksesang]

There are several things to say about that view of baptism.
First... Jesus mostly taught by parable or example. the only scripture he ever knew or quoted was Jewish scripture.

Those he taught, even the disciples, were never with him all the time he was teaching, some were sent on other tasks.
Those stories and teachings that found their way into the Bible were incomplete by the nature of their witness. (no one witnessed every thing) Those that did witness individual teachings did not necessarily pass them to the eventual authors of the scriptures , not all these writings were later selected for inclusion in the bible.

Most modern study using the earliest available sources of Matthew 28 19 agree that the Baptismal quote is correct. This is confirmed in the teaching of a vast majority of Christian Churches.

There is new trend amongst some people describing them selves as "Christian" to deny this teaching.This trend seems to have started in the USA. It seems they are evolving a new Dogma.

It is clear from the Didache that Baptism was essential to the faith of the earliest Christian groups, members of which were undoubtedly around during Jesus mission on earth, and that of his disciples. Some would almost certainly have seen or heard him teach in person.

This alone would lead me to accept their teaching on the matter, over that of a modern 21st century interpretation.

The earliest available sources of this verse is in the works of Eusebius, where the three names are not mentioned, but only "my name". Or are there any earlier manuscripts that say otherwise?
And whichever the correct reading is, I don't believe it is a necessity to be baptized with water in either case. Because the baptism of Christ isn't the same as the baptism of John (or else John had no reason to distinguish between the baptism of water and the baptism of fire).

However, you are right that the first Christian groups did indeed seem to practice the tradition of baptism with water. Although, that they were early Christians is not the same to say that they are correct - there were many heretics even among the first century Christians. That is something one must keep in mind.

EDIT: As I can see, there is no early manuscript fragments of that verse and no early complete manuscript?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Baptism is Further referenced in the Didache to strengthen its nececity...

( following the details on how to perform the eucharist it says.....)
Didache 9:5
let no one eat or drink from youre eucharist
except those baptised in the name of the Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs"

So no baptism... no taking part in the eucharist... seems very clear.

This is all taking place prior to the compilation of the Bible or the established church. By people,some of whom had heard Jesus and the disciples.

 

[heksesang]

Baptism is Further referenced in the Didache to strengthen its nececity...

( following the details on how to perform the eucharist it says.....)
Didache 9:5
let no one eat or drink from youre eucharist
except those baptised in the name of the Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs"

So no baptism... no taking part in the eucharist... seems very clear.

This is all taking place prior to the compilation of the Bible or the established church. By people,some of whom had heard Jesus and the disciples.

Just because one text says something doesn't make it true. Eusebius said this about the Didache:

"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon."
​

As you can see, not everyone accepted this text as truth. Just because the ones that did accept this text saw it as a requirement and it was a requirement in those circles, that does not mean that it matters to God or that Jesus ever stated that it was a requirement.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are several things to say about that view of baptism.
First... Jesus mostly taught by parable or example. the only scripture he ever knew or quoted was Jewish scripture.

Those he taught, even the disciples, were never with him all the time he was teaching, some were sent on other tasks.
Those stories and teachings that found their way into the Bible were incomplete by the nature of their witness. (no one witnessed every thing) Those that did witness individual teachings did not necessarily pass them to the eventual authors of the scriptures , not all these writings were later selected for inclusion in the bible.

Most modern study using the earliest available sources of Matthew 28 19 agree that the Baptismal quote is correct. This is confirmed in the teaching of a vast majority of Christian Churches.

There is new trend amongst some people describing them selves as "Christian" to deny this teaching.This trend seems to have started in the USA. It seems they are evolving a new Dogma.

It is clear from the Didache that Baptism was essential to the faith of the earliest Christian groups, members of which were undoubtedly around during Jesus mission on earth, and that of his disciples. Some would almost certainly have seen or heard him teach in person.

This alone would lead me to accept their teaching on the matter, over that of a modern 21st century interpretation.

Jesus also drank wine (I like beer), was a fisherman (nope, I don't fish either), and hung out with prostitutes (no siree), so if we are to follow his "example" as opposed to his teachings (which are found in the Bible), then shouldn't every Christian aspire to fulfill these actions?
By your logic Christians would.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just because one text says something doesn't make it true. Eusebius said this about the Didache:

"Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon."
​

As you can see, not everyone accepted this text as truth. Just because the ones that did accept this text saw it as a requirement and it was a requirement in those circles, that does not mean that it matters to God or that Jesus ever stated that it was a requirement.

Your Quote is in error,Its authenticity and truth has never been in doubt. Eusebius never categorised the Didiche in that way or amongst those texts. However it was the "Only" widely used "document" used for the training of new recruits into the Judo-Christian Jesus movement.
It is not, and never was "scripture", It is more properly a vehicle for catechism. Though one can see what they believed from the training they gave. Such works, including Prayer books and orders of service and the catechism are never included in the Bible

Had Eusebius succeeded in converting the Roman empire to Arianism (a heresy) Christianity would be very different today.


Eusebius Recognised the Didache as orthodox instruction but not as Scripture (Though some other church leaders thought it was) Nor did he categorise it within the list you indicated. It was not accepted in to the Bible canon as it was of oral origin and not ascribed to an apostle as required. (We now know almost none of the Bible canon can be firmly ascribed to any apostle.)

Some modern Christians have erroneously concluded that since the Didache was, in the end, not accepted as part of the New Testament canon, it therefore is some heretical or dangerous work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book does not claim to be inspired. The fact that some churches included it in the canon of Scripture demonstrates both its antiquity and orthodoxy. Eusebius did not include the Didache in his fourth category: counterfeit and heretical “gospels,” such as the Gospel of Thomas. Athanasius, although not viewing the Didache as Scripture, did recommend it for personal spiritual reading.

.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Jesus also drank wine (I like beer), was a fisherman (nope, I don't fish either), and hung out with prostitutes (no siree), so if we are to follow his "example" as opposed to his teachings (which are found in the Bible), then shouldn't every Christian aspire to fulfill these actions?
By your logic Christians would.

At that time every one drank wine it was safer and healthier than water. As far as I know he never " Hung out" with Prostitutes, though he no doubt helped them.
He saw little point in working with self appointed "Perfect" people His mission was with the sinners.

We should indeed follow this lead. (Jesus was not a fisherman he started work with his father a carpenter) He directed us to leave everything and follow him. He never looked back once he started his mission.

These were teachings and actions to follow... not simply to believe.