Water Baptism NOT Necessary for Salvation!


Can you please show me where this baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs in scripture?

Also, please explain to me why Jesus was baptised, and why he commanded converts to be baptized (with water). Thanks in advance.:slight_smile:


It is possible to be baptized through desire. But these instances are very rare in that if one desires baptism and there is absolutely no way for it to be performed on them, as in cases of imminent death, it is believed that the Lord, through His infinite mercy will bestow upon them the graces of baptism. St. Thomas Aquinas can attest to this.

This is similiar to general absolution, and follows the same restrictions in its use. It cannot be done willy-nilly by anyone, or out of laziness, but out of strict necessity where death is imminent and there is no priest present.

A good example of baptism by desire is the story of Dismas, the good theif; Where his belief in the Lord, and his situation making it impossible for baptism (assuming he wasn’t baptized earlier before his crucifixion) by water, the Lord bestowed upon him the necessary graces for salvation, proved by His words,“Today you will be with me in paradise.”

But like I said, such circumstances are extremely rare and are required for baptism by desire, and as such cannot replace the formal sacrament of baptism if circumstances don’t make recieving the sacrament impossible.


Jesus himself said that water is necessary for Baptism (in normal circumstances): “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The argument that by “born of water” Christ means “born of woman” (the “water” being amniotic fluid) doesn’t hold up. In the same sentence, Jesus refers to being born of woman as “born of flesh.” “Born of water” is simply an odd way to refer to physical birth. As far as I can tell, it’s an unprecedented metaphor.

Besides, it seems to me that if Christ had been referring to physical birth by “born of water” and baptism by “and the Spirit,” then he would have said “born of water and BORN OF the Spirit.”


Confirmation is baptism with fire, by which one enters into full life as a Christian. The Holy Spirit came upon the Church at Pentecost. Baptism with water is a necessary prelude and can be given to children or others unable to act as full members of the community.
Jesus was free from sin, but He obeys His own rules.


He’s accepted a misinterpretation of that verse that is widely taught by Pentecostals.

The basic idea is that they teach that they will speak in tongues as a sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is a very narrow and unscriptural view since there are several passages that show that there are many fruits of being filled with the Holy Spirit (See Galatians 5:22-23) other than speaking in tongues.

St. Paul in 1st Corinthians chapters 12-14 gives a pretty comprehensive discourse on it all and I suggest that anyone who has questions about this or is talking with a Pentecostal, (or even a Charismatic Catholic for that matter) read those chapters carefully.

You’ll also find that they make a pretty big deal out of Acts chapters 2 and 10. Using it as a platform to assert that speaking in tongues is like the primary sign that a believer is filled with the Holy Spirit, (which is not scripturally true). It’s important to read these passages objectively and realize that Pentecostals/Charismatics tend to read their own interpretations into them.

As for your thread title statement. That is not true, and has never been taught by the Church. A couple of very important passages to consider concerning water baptism is Acts 2:38 (a Pentecostal favorite) and Acts 22:16. 1st Peter 3:21 is also something that is instructive concerning the need and function of baptism.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.


I don’t think that the OP (believers) was talking about desire, but was saying that water baptism is irrelevant.

Why didn’t Jesus baptise His disciples?

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit does not fully come upon a person at Baptism? that part of the outpouring is reserved for confirmation? If baptized children can act as full members of the community, why do they need confirmation?


Because John was baptising.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit does not fully come upon a person at Baptism? that part of the outpouring is reserved for confirmation? If baptized children can act as full members of the community, why do they need confirmation?

That is right. Baptised children can’t act as full members of the community. In the case of small children they are obviously incapable of it. So we baptise them, but we won’t confirm them until they are old enough to accept the responsibilities as well as the benefits of membership.


His disciples were probably already baptized by John, and if not, who’s to say his already-baptized disciples didn’t baptize the new ones?

Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again to Galilee. (John 4:1-3)

The baptism Jesus gave was the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, which was a distinct event that took place long after their baptism of water.


While confirmation has BECOME, in the minds of people of the west, an adult acceptance, acceptance of “adult responsibilities” is not needed to be confirmed in the Church.

In the East, they confirm infants. In the West, they became separated because the act of confirmation was reserved for the bishop and due to the distance of travel, infants were baptized and several years could go by before they were confirmed.

This has now extended many years and has become a kind of “accept your adult responsibilities” kind of thing. However, there is a move in some archdiocese to confirm at a younger age as was done before.


And yet in scripture we see that a dove, usually a symbol used for the Holy Spirit, descended upon Jesus and a voice from heaven said this is my son with whom I am well pleased.


But scripture makes it clear that the Baptism of John was for repentance, and that it did not impart the Holy Spirit. The baptism of Jesus must then somehow be different than that of John.

Acts 18:25
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John."

Acts 19:1-6
There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them"


**When Jesus asked:

Mat 20:22 . . . Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Was he talking about getting dipped in water?**


:clapping: :clapping: A very good point Maria! I had forgotten about that.
Pax tecum,


Was he talking about getting dipped in water?Irrelevant to this discussion.

He was referring to the suffering that they would share of His.


:blushing: A double clap from Church Militant:blushing: Now you have me blushing.

God Bless


I know Im not believers but Im sure he would agree with this statement:
Question: "Is baptism necessary for salvation? What is baptismal regeneration?"
Answer: Baptismal regeneration is the belief that a person must be baptized in order to be saved. It is our contention that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject baptism as being required for salvation. We strongly believe that each and every Christian should be water baptized by immersion. Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4 declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The action of being immersed in the water illustrates being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as being required for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add ANYTHING to the Gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say that we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation, but cannot be a requirement for salvation.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.



If baptism is necessary for salvation, why would Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1:14)? Why would he have said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1:17)? Granted, in this passage Paul is arguing against the divisions that plagued the Corinthian church. However, how could Paul possibly say, “I am thankful that I did not baptize…” or “For Christ did not send me to baptize…” if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism is necessary for salvation, Paul would literally be saying, “I am thankful that you were not saved…” and “For Christ did not send me to save…” That would be an unbelievably ridiculous statement for Paul to make. Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism? If baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the Gospel lack a mentioning of baptism?

Baptismal regeneration is not a Biblical concept. Baptism does not save from sin, but from a bad conscience. Peter clearly taught that baptism was not a ceremonial act of physical purification, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Baptism is the symbol of what has already occurred in the heart and life of one who has trusted Christ as Savior (cf. Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12). To make the source of salvation perfectly clear, Peter added, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Peter 1:3). Baptism is an important step of obedience that every Christian should take. Baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. To make it such is an attack on the sufficiency of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hopes this helps:thumbsup:


He could not have been, because He and all of his disciples had already been baptized. He was speaking about something that was yet to come, like his baptism of suffering/blood.

So, this teaching is similar to the teaching about the Lord’s supper? There is no any actual power involved, just an illustration? Why did Jesus command such “illustrations”?

I think this is an example of that “either/or” thinking prevalent in Protestantism. Whereas, Catholics see “both/and”. The fact that Jesus taught so many things relevant to salvation (obedience for example) demonstrates that faith alone is an incomplete teaching. What did He say in the Great Commission? Teach them to pray the sinners prayer and they will be saved?

Jesus’ teachings about the gospel include many truths relevant to salvation, in addition to baptism. Yes, His death on the cross is central to the Gospel, but so are His other teachings. To separate them from one another is to have an incomplete gospel. If that were not the case, why did he “waste” His time teaching? Why not just go be crucified immediately?

It sounds like you do not distinuish between works of the flesh, and sacred works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Actions taken by faith, through grace, in obedience to Christ are not works of the flesh, but sacred works that demonstrate, and proceed from, the faith we have in Him.

How do we dispense of THOSE, I wonder? :shrug:


I pick this out because this is the common misunderstanding. Since some non-Catholics only view baptism as symbolic, it becomes a “work”.

However, baptism is not symbolic, it is a miracle from God. Just as God chooses to heal people through the laying on of hands or prayers of others, He chooses to enact the miracle of the removal of sins through the act of baptism.

Unless God answering prayers of others are “works” this simply shows a complete misunderstanding of what the Catholic and sacramental Protestants understand baptism to be.

While I respect that some Protestants do not view baptism as anything as symbolic and therefore it truly would be a “work”, I would hope that those same people could say, well, I don’t agree that it is an actual miracle, but since you do, I agree it would not be a “work”.


ALLFORHIM, unfortunately your approach to this issue is backwards. The Church, instructed personally by the Apostles who were instructed personally by Christ, has always baptized infants and children – not because the Bible said so, but because the Apostles said so. Water baptism is necessary for salvation and can be given at any age. It regenerates the soul.

The Catholic Church wrote the NT during the first Christian century and selected and canonized the writings of the OT and NT when she was nearly 400 years old. It’s not a hard question, like which came first, the chicken or the egg. The Catholic Church came first and produced the Bible at the end of the fourth century A.D.

A little Bible history and a study of the history of Christianity does a body a world of good and saves one from making Bible Blunders like this.

Peace be with you.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.