Is baptism actually required for salvation, or have we been dunking people under false pretenses?

• Y9

  Yuki 921mo ago

  The thief on the cross. End of discussion. That man had zero opportunity to be baptized and Jesus himself said 'today you will be with me in paradise.' If baptism were required, Jesus either lied or made an exception, and I don't think he does either.

  187Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  My grandmother lived in rural China as a missionary kid. She baptized a woman on her deathbed using a cup of water because that was all they had. Was it valid? Was she saved? The woman had confessed Christ with tears and joy. I refuse to serve a God petty enough to check the container size and reject her.

  156Reply
• D

  Drew1mo ago

  So what happens to the guy who genuinely believes, is driving to his baptism, and dies in a car accident? He's in hell? That's the logical end of your position and it's monstrous.

  143Reply
• H

  Hana1mo ago

  okay but the thief on the cross argument is so tired. He died under the OLD covenant. The Great Commission — 'go and make disciples, baptizing them' — wasn't even given yet. You can't use a pre-resurrection example to nullify a post-resurrection command. That's just bad hermeneutics.

  134Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  Genuinely curious question, not rhetorical: if your church taught baptismal regeneration and you found out your child was never properly baptized due to a clerical error, what would you actually DO? Would you panic? Would you trust God's grace anyway? Your honest answer to that tells you more about what you actually believe than any proof text.

  129Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  I spent fifteen years as a Baptist pastor and then converted to Catholicism largely over this issue. The early church — I mean Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, these are 2nd century witnesses — they all spoke of baptism as regenerative. The idea that it's merely symbolic is a Zwinglian innovation from the 1500s. We didn't 'discover' the symbolic view by reading the Bible more carefully. Zwingli invented it. That's the historical reality.

  119Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  the person above me just called a dying woman's deathbed confession 'emotion.' i want you to reread what you typed.

  112Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  I think both sides keep arguing past each other because they're asking different questions. The sacramental view is asking 'what does God use as his means of grace?' The Baptist view is asking 'what is the minimum requirement to enter heaven?' These aren't the same question and conflating them creates endless confusion. Baptism can be a genuine means of grace without being a mathematical prerequisite for paradise.

  103Reply
• LT

  Liam T.1mo ago

  I was raised Church of Christ. Baptism for the remission of sins was taught to me as firmly as the resurrection itself. Acts 2:38 is not ambiguous: 'Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.' Peter didn't say repent, then maybe get baptized when it's convenient. The 'and' is doing real work in that sentence.

  97Reply
• R

  Ravi1mo ago

  Okay can we talk about the elephant in the room which is INFANT baptism? Because if baptism regenerates, are we really saying infants who die unbaptized go to hell or limbo or wherever? That's where this road leads and most people defending baptismal regeneration don't want to follow it to the end.

  93Reply
• C

  Casey1mo ago

  Cool so we're taking church fathers over Paul now? Ephesians 2:8-9. 'For by grace you have been saved through FAITH — and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — NOT A RESULT OF WORKS.' Baptism is a work. You physically do it. Therefore it cannot save. I don't care what Ignatius said.

  88Reply
• E

  Elena1mo ago

  Here's my problem with the 'just a symbol' crowd. If it's JUST a symbol, why do so many Baptist churches still make it a condition for church membership? You're telling people it doesn't save them and then treating them as incomplete Christians until they do it. You can't have it both ways either.

  86Reply
• PL

  Priya L.1mo ago

  John 3:5's 'water' has been interpreted as amniotic fluid (natural birth), as the word of God, as the Holy Spirit's cleansing, AND as baptism. The early church wasn't even unanimous on it. Throwing it out as a slam dunk is overconfident.

  81Reply
• JM

  Jordan M.1mo ago

  I'll be honest — I grew up Baptist, got baptized at 9 because all my friends were doing it at Vacation Bible School. Didn't really understand what I was doing. Got re-baptized at 24 as an actual meaningful decision. If baptism is just a symbol, why did my second one feel so completely different and real? I'm not saying that proves regeneration but I'm saying something happened that I can't explain away.

  78Reply
• L

  Liam1mo ago

  been in ministry 30 years and i still don't have a clean answer on this. i baptize everyone who asks. i trust God with the rest. some hills aren't worth dying on when we're all going to find out eventually anyway.

  74Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  baptism is a work the same way breathing is a work. technically yes but nobody's arguing you earn oxygen

  72Reply
• RB

  Reese B.1mo ago

  That's actually one of the most coherent things I've read in a comment section in years. Saving this.

  67Reply
• Y

  Yuki1mo ago

  nobody said he goes to hell lol. most baptismal regeneration folks have a concept of 'baptism of desire' for exactly that situation. do some homework before attacking a position you're caricaturing

  61Reply
• FL

  Feli L.1mo ago

  John 3:5 — 'Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' Jesus himself. To the person who keeps quoting Ephesians: are you really going to pit Paul against Jesus?

  55Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  If you need six different possible interpretations to defend your reading maybe your reading isn't as solid as you think it is

  49Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  That metaphor is cute but it doesn't hold up theologically. Breathing is involuntary. Baptism is a deliberate religious ritual. The comparison collapses immediately.

  44Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  Nobody is saying God is petty. The question is whether WE are faithful to what he commanded. A soldier who loves his commanding officer still follows orders. Emotion isn't an argument.

  39Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  most Catholic and Lutheran theologians today would say no, unbaptized infants are not condemned. The Church has moved substantially on this. So your slippery slope doesn't really land the way you think it does.

  38Reply
• ER

  Elena R.1mo ago

  Sounds like you're just trying to have it both ways because you're uncomfortable committing to a position. Theology requires precision.

  22Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about