is baptism essential for salavtion

i was after thoughts on water baptism.is it essential for salvation?if not why & if so why,i knows jesus last command was go into all the world & make disciples, baptising so is it & if you havent should you,

Here is an old thread:water baptismAfter going around and around in this circle over time, listening to all the arguments from every conceivable angle, think it just boils down to simplicity:Just do it.There is hardly much that compares and brings out the tears of joy than to be present when a heart is converted and all that is represented in this symbolism is expressed. A most recent and perfect example was of the privilege to be present for the baptism of a dear, dear soul, such a heart felt expression of love to the Lord, very contrite and humble...Oh did he get it! He so understood... I couldn't but help embrace this 'stranger' as he came up out of the water, for he was not a stranger at all, but a dear brother. Praise God, what a wonderful gift this is!Here's some pictures of Frank:Church in the Park (jan/05)

What did Jesus say? What did Jesus do in the Jordan river? What did the apostles tell those who asked, "What shall we do?" ?

ok! We agree that water baptism is right. However does it say that who ever is being put under the water should be fully submurged? I believe yes! However is it scriptual? or just a ritual!

Thanks Clueless! Yeah i think i will wait for someone who knows what they are on about! :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P No not really i agree with you and believe also in the the picture of life and death!!! That is really useful about the greek so thank you! ;-) :-)

Scripture tells us that they settled on a place in the Jordan because the water there was deeper - that is only going to be a 'plus' if you baptise according to immersion.The word was used secularly to describe the use of fishing nets, and the making of pickles. You could hardly catch any fish by sprinking water on your net - likewise, you could hardly pickle a cucumber by sprinkling it with vinegar.Immersion is the most logical, biblical method.

> Is it essential for salvation?Was the theif on the cross baptised? No. Was he saved? Yes.Would he have been baptised if it had been possible - Definitely.Some might argue that the theif was saved under the old covenant - but they forget that anyone who hung on a peice of wood was accursed according to Jewish law. He was certainly not saved under the old system - which means that salvation precedes baptism.I would seriously question the authenticity of any faith that refused to obediently follow Christ in baptism - but if one was to ask dogmatically is baptism a part of salvation I would remind them of what Paul said in 1 Cor 1:17 - "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." A statement that would have no meaning if the baptism were part of the salvation plan.Scripture demonstrates that those who received the Spirit were baptized - that is, those whom God regenerated and gave the "seal/down payment/guarentee" that they were His children - these were baptized.Baptism was an act of obedience - a public profession of faith - a symbolic representation of the dying and being raised with Christ - not some magic hoodoo that gives you the Spirit. Scripture makes a point to demonstrate that the Spirit always preceded the baptism.Dan

whoops - I double posted - so I edited the double post and replaced it with the text you are currently reading... :-P

The greek meaning of the word baptise is 'to dip' whether that means totally or partially I don't know! Wow I sound really intelligent now! But actually I just looked in the dictionary.I can see I'm going to have to tread carefully here. :-) It's an interesting thing that I don't know of a Bible translation that actually translates the Greek word 'baptizO'. The translators have all 'bottled out' and rather than translating it they have just transliterated it; ie put Greek letters into English letters.If they had done this with other Greek words we would have read things like "And Peter said unto them, metanoi ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the aphesis of your hamartia; and ye shall lambano the dorea of the Holy Spirit." which would not have been very helpful! I don't know if anyone out there has ever read of any reason as to why translations will not translate 'baptizo'?

The English language as we know it, dates back only as far as 1450 AD. The first translation of the bible into modern English was Tyndales (1519) which was translated a mere four years after the start of the reformation (1515).Recall that the Catholic church martyred Tyndale in 1536 for having translating the bible into English. Can you imagine how much sooner he would have been martyred had he translated baptizo rather than transliterated it? Decisions such as translating or transliterating were made in a time when making this decision was a death sentence. Tyndale knew he was putting his life in jeopardy by translating the scriptures into English - but had he done so in a way that demonstrated error of the catholic church in baptism - well, he would have been branded a heretic immediately. The reformation was only four years old at that time - they were trying to reform the catholic faith - not start a new one. It would be careless to ignore the historical flavor of the time. Tyndal set the pace, and others followed in step. The first English translations were transliterations because that was the tradition which sprang from those circumstances. The longer they remained transliterated, the stronger the tradition to transliterate became.I am not saying that this is the sole reason - but I put it out there because it should be weighed along with the rest of the data.The evidence sides with baptism by immersion for the earliest baptisms - though it became popular to baptize by thrice pouring early on in the history of Christianity.If I had to choose one way as 'more biblical' I would chose immersion, likewise I would teach and practice it. But I would stop short of suggesting that other ways are absolutely inappropriate. A person on their death bed who is baptized by sprinking is, in my opinion, just as soundly baptized as one who is dunked into a river.But always and ever, I would promote immersion over pouring, and pouring over sprinkling - making exception only where the situation dictates a (pardon the pun) watering down of the methodology.Dan

907 - baptizo (bap-tid'-zo) : from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash.

Suppose I would offer a treatment from the Jewish Roots of ritual immersion? Baptism is in no means new in the New Testament. RITUAL IMMERSION (The Origin of Baptism)God Bless,-Robert

Recall that the Catholic church martyred Tyndale in 1536 for having translating the bible into English. Can you imagine how much sooner he would have been martyred had he translated baptizo rather than transliterated it?I don't think this will stand up. Tyndale was no compromiser. Wycliffe's 1385 translation from the Latin into English had used 'baptise' rather than translating it. Jerome's Vulgate has 'baptizetur' in Acts 2:38 etc.Tyndale, was however, to all intents and purposes Lutheran and Luther was and Lutherans still are strong advocates of infant baptism. I suspect that Tyndale did not feel sufficiently convinced of immersion to make the point.

Following is a link to a great place to start if you want to study the baptism issue. This site is packed with articles and links about believer's baptism.BaptizoIn Christ,Ron

Actually... I think I read some material on Tyndale where in his personal writings he expressed displeasure in infant baptism based on his studies of the Word of God. I believe he held that it was of no avail to baptise an infant, and he confirmed that baptism was symbolic of the regeneration of salvation.Philologos... can you confirm or deny thatNeither, but I would be very interested to know whether or not it is true.The Anglican prayerbook of 1662 actually has immersion as its preferred mode and only permits sprinkling if the child is infirm. Although in practise this does not seem to have happened. However if you see the 'fonts' in old English churches you will see that they could accommodate immersion of infants. However this is still infant-baptism and not believers-baptism.I found this quotation from TyndaleWilliam Tyndale"The washing [of baptism] preacheth unto us that we are cleansed with Christ's bloodshedding, which was an offering and a satisfaction for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin which is Adam. And the pulling out again, signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us and work the will of God in us, as thou seest Rom.VI." ( Obedience of a Christian Man, 1571 edition, p. 143.) which certainly indicates that Tyndale saw the symbolic significance of the 'plunge'. And this from Martin Luther"On this account (as a symbol of death and resurrection), I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ." ( Luther's Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76)"If you consider what baptism signifies, you will see that the same thing [immersion] is required. For this signifies, that the old man, and our sinful nature, which consists of flesh and blood, is all submerged by divine grace, as we shall more fully show. The mode of baptizing ought, therefore, to correspond to the signification of baptism, so as to set forth a sure and full sign of it." ( De Sacram. Bapt. Quoted by Conant, The Meaning & Use of Baptizein)"First, the name baptism is Greek; in Latin it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may be all covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use with most persons (nor do they wholly submerge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand." ( On the Sacrament of Baptism)Then also without doubt, in German tongues, the little word tauf [baptism] comes from the word tief [deep], because what one baptizes he sinks deep into the water." ( Luther's Works, Vol. 21, p. 229) Luther's bible uses 'taufen' in Acts 2:38 (RB) There are some excellent quotations here