This has piqued my interest, so... And I have a few questions. If you want to start with one and move down, or focus on one in particular...whatever.

1. Is baptism neccessary to get to heaven?
2. Is baptism neccessary as a part of the Christian walk? (As in, you don't have to, but it's really important to?)
3. Is infant baptism wrong?

I don't believe it is baptism is neccessary to get to heaven. Baptism in water doesn't cleanse the soul, Jesus' sacrifice does.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this one. I've never been baptised, and I'm not sure it is that important. Jesus was baptised (Matthew 3)...but I think it is more of a showing that someone has been saved, and it's up to them to do it or not.

Acts 2:38 wrote:

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."

Reading that verse would make me think it is neccessary, but some other verses (which I'm trying to find) seem to say that baptism isn't as important as this one does.

I'd really like to see more verses about baptism. I thought I knew where some were, but I can't seem to find the reference. I'll post more later.

_________________
Jennifer
"Youth comes but once in a lifetime." Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Let me see if I know enough to back my views up, then I'll see about debating.

I have a couple thoughts on the topic and the verse referenced, but probably won't be able to post for another day or two, due to some other things I have to work on.

1. Paul says in Ephesians that we are "saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any man should boast." If baptism was required for salvation, man would have to do a work to be saved, therefore he would have something to boast in and his salvation would not be entirely by the grace of God through faith. Confess that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. End of story.

However, baptism is a sign of one's salvation, which leads us to question 2....

2. Baptism is a command. Peter says in Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized." Baptism is a proclamation of one's salvation. It is a choice someone makes to declare their salvation to the world. I would say that someone who claims to be a Christain and sees the commands for baptism in the Bible but refuses to be baptized should examine their own salvation. I don't see why a person who is saved would not want to be baptized. We see this over and over again in the book of Acts. A person is saved and their natural reaction is a desire to be baptized. It is not a requirement for salvation, but if someone refuses baptism, I would ask them to examine their reasoning and their faith.

3. No, infant baptism is not wrong from the perspective that God never commands againsts infanst baptism. If a parent wants to dedicate their child to God by throwing water on their head, there's nothing wrong with that. But I would challenge anyone who believes in infant baptism to show defend it with scripture. Infant baptism is not command in scipriture. The baptism of a believer is commanded. There is nothing wrong with infant baptism, but it does not and should not replace believer's baptism.

awesome post music girl!!!!

1) ditto what she said

2) I've heard many people explain Baptism as a "step of obedience" taken after salvation. As she said, no where in scripture is is necessary for Salvation, but really should naturally follow.

However I wouldn't question a person's salvation simply on the fact that they have refused to be baptized. A lot of people struggle with how public it is...and the "dunking under water" aspect...so I would venture to say that MOST Christians who have not been baptized either 1) don't understand Baptism or 2) are afraid to take that step. If the motive for not being baptized is simple refusal (i.e. rebellion...) then I would question their motives and reasoning.

3) I can't say that it is sinful or wrong, but I would avoid it simply because so many other religions view infant baptism as necessary for Salvation. Dedication is a great thing...but I would NEVER have any kind of baptism associated with it.

The reason that I chose to be baptized (very shortly after I was saved at the age of 7) was to follow Jesus' example. Looking back I remember it so distinctly. I was in 2nd grade and at school (in Bible class I think) we read the story about how Jesus was baptized. My thoughts were, "If Jesus was baptized, then I should be to!"

I think Kurt and I got baptized on the same day but I can't remember.

(I go to a Vineyard church, which does immersion baptisms of believers who choose it, and infant dedications... just so you know where I'm coming from)

1. No, it isn't necessary to get into Heaven. Like MusicGirl pointed out, we are saved by grace, through faith, NOT by works. (I did a quick bit of research, and found that the Catholic church (who baptise infants) has no official teaching on whether non-baptised infants go to Heaven! Interesting...)

2. I would say yes, it is necessary to the Christian walk, it's really important. Most of my reasons have already been posted by others, so I'll just mention them briefly.
-Like you said Jennifer, Jesus was baptised, and as MusicGirl and Song pointed out, it is commanded that we be baptised after we repent. To me, those two reasons are enough.

3. I disagree with infant baptism. The order of Peter's command in Acts is "repent", then "be baptised". Like MusicGirl said, God never commands against it, but I don't see a case for it in the Bible.
________________________________

I've been researching the issue of infant or "believer's" baptism, and have found an interesting point. Rather than explain it, check it out here

Since mostly we would agree on point 1, we will skip it and move on.

Lily Among Thorns wrote:

2. Is baptism neccessary as a part of the Christian walk? (As in, you don't have to, but it's really important to?) 3. Is infant baptism wrong?[/b]

These are the two points of the debate. In keeping with the pattern here, once the "for" and "against" sides have been established, each side should make some kind of opening post, or one side can open inviting the other to respond.


Thanks

So, I'm not really following the rules of the forum, I guess. Bending them, to borrow the phrase. I would type one of my rambling oratories but I have to head out to work soon. I also think it is fine to leave that kind of rambling to someone else :-D Here is where I stand.

2. Is baptism neccessary as a part of the Christian walk? (As in, you don't have to, but it's really important to?)
As a part of the Christian walk... yes. As part of salvation... no. The problem with modern day baptism, in our cozy heated baptismals is that it bears no significance for us. At least not the significance it should. Baptism is a form of identifying, and I am assuming that we are talking the water baptism of the believer (since there are other 'baptisms' mentioned in the Bible). To be baptized is to identify and publicly profess Christ. We don't have, currently, any opposition to our faith, so baptism sometimes is just reduced down to a dunking tank. In Jesus' day and in 'third world' churches today, believers are baptized in a river. Rivers aren't secluded. People could see, and not just church people. Any Joe or Tom walking down the road could see. In an age of persecution, that is a huge deal.
That being said, we are to follow the example set by Christ. Obviously, Christ was not baptized as a result of salvation, but as a precursor to it. He was identifying with the Father, and if you notice, the Father in turn identifies with Him (big sidenote there).

3. Is infant baptism wrong?
Wrong is a harsh word. It carries the idea that it is a sin. There is no command against it. However, since baptism is the identifying of a Christian, then infant baptism as a means of assuring salvation is not Biblical and not valid. That being said, I have been to some infant baptismal services that were more like baby dedication services. The baby goes to the front with mom and dad and the priest says a few words of challenge to the parents and they commit to raise their child in the faith. Then the baby gets "baptized." I think if used in this context it is ok. Remember, baptism is just a form of identifying. In this case the parents are identifying that their son or daughter will be raised for the Lord. I haven't done any research into secondary thinking of infant baptism (if the church believes it indeed is a form of salvation) but as long as it is understood that sprinkling water on the head does not guarantee Heaven, then all is well.

Quick thought on point 3 - Is infant baptism wrong?

Really, the real question is "Is infant baptism really baptism?"

It's not - and here's why:

1. Baptism is immersion - that's what the word means. The same Greek word is used in extra-biblical sources to refer to dying a cloth in liquid solution. Immersion is also a part of the Jewish tradition. Bottom line - sprinkling a baby isn't baptism.

2. "Baptism" as a rite with symbolic value means something; and what it means isn't something reflected by infant baptism. How does sprinkling a baby represent or symbolize turning from sin and a new life in Christ? The child does not even have a knowledge of sin at the time... the baby is unregenerate, he or she has not repented or placed faith in Christ. Baptism is for believers - and no matter how cute the kid is, or how spiritual the parents are, the baby hasn't been saved - so he or she shouldn't be baptised.

3. What infant baptism actually symbolizes in the Reformed tradition - accepting the baby into the covenant of faith with his parents - aside from not being at all related to the practice of believer's baptism, is not a Biblical concept. Some would argue that it is the Christian counterpart of circumcision; however, this poses the question of why Christian girls should be baptized; plus, there are a lot of arguments from Romans and Galatians that indicate the ineffectuality of circumcision in obtaining grace. Assurance of salvation comes as a result of personal faith, which is the only term of the covenant agreement - something which an infant has yet to develop the capability to exercise. God does not require an infant who cannot yet choose good or evil to obtain grace by riding the coat-tails of his parent's belief: rather, God gives grace according to the character of His own person.

(This is why I don't believe it to be necessary at all: the implication in the Reformed tradition is that the infant needs baptism to be "covered" under the grace of God if he/she were to die before believing in Christ, and that if this were to happen before baptism, the infant would presumably taste the eternal wrath of God for having a sin nature - which I obviously don't believe. Rather, I believe that the infant is covered under the grace of God because of who God is - a Person who cannot punish the guiltless; ergo, infant baptism is unnecessary.)

Number, I agree for the most part, but a couple of things....

1. This is not the place to discuss whether or not when infants die they go to heaven. That is too big of a discussion to have it get tangled up in this debate.

2. I think you're being a little harsh on the Reformer's position. And, although I agree, I would not be convinced by your argument. You should support it some more. I'm mainly saying this cause I agree with what you're saying but would like to hear a stronger, more convincing argument on the subject, for my sake.

3. I disagree that baptism has to be immersion. That's the form I prefer, but how do we know for sure that Jesus was even immersed? There has been some evidence that the portion of the Jordan River where he would have been baptized would have been too shallow at that time of the year for full immersion. Also, there has been some archeological digs that have found early church baptismals as basins of water for sprinkling, not tubs for dunking. Basically, I don't think we should get so caught up in the form of baptism, but instead in the motivation behind it.

This thread has been moved due to its nature. It is a discussion and not an organized debate.

If you would like to pursue any of the topics here in debate, that is fine, you just need to comply with the format that has been set.


Otherwise, you may now discuss this freely.

Whoa! I'm gone for a little while and this happens!

OK...so you all seem to believe baptism is very important. But, from my observation of a couple of churches it seems like something that you just do when you get to a certain point. Like why is it that some churches have a grade get baptized at the same time (for instance, my cousin was baptized with her 6th grade (I think) class)? I haven't been baptized just because I haven't. It's not that I don't want to, I just haven't. Perhaps it's because no one thinks it's that big of a deal. Like you just get dunked and there you go, you're baptized. It's like no one is doing it as a symbol of their salvation, they're just doing it because "that's what Christians do".

So, just a question...you don't have to answer. Why were you guys baptized? Please be honest. Was it really because you were showing you had been saved or just because baptism is what Christians do? I've seen a lot more of the latter than the former.