Is there any Christian group which does not think Baptism is necessary?
Is there any Christian group which does not think Baptism is necessary?
Friends do not practice water baptism.
Who are “Friends”?
A lot of evangelical churches think that you should be baptised but it is not nessasary for salvation. It is called following Jesus but it does not save you…
IF “Baptism by desire” is possible then Water baptism isn’t absolutely necessary…
Quakers, I believe, the Society of Friends.
There are at least three different groups known as “Friends” or “Quakers”, and whichever one you are hanging around is, of course, the true one. They started in 17th-Century England when a shepherd named George Fox, angry at the combination of shallowness and extremism in the religious scene, saty in sorrow on Pendle Hill. A voice said that the one who could speak to his condition was Jesus Christ. He decided that societies of friends, literally, gathering anywhere and listening for God quietly together, were the true way to have church and be a Christian community. he started gathering his friends and persuading them. They went into churches 9"steeplehouses", they called them) and denouncing whatever they thought empty and needless. They walked door-to-door urging people to stop sinning. They visited prisoners, gave away possessions, wore the most humble clothing they could stand and ate simple food. They didn’t believe in leaders or sacraments. They refused to take oaths, bargain at market, or call anyone by any courtesy title. they called everyone “Thou” instead of “You” because the plural was used to set apart more respected persons, and Friends held all as equals. The C of E persecuted them.Many came to America and were persecuted by Puritans.
Today, Orthodox Friends, a small group, dress plainly and say “Thou”, Evangelical Friends believe the theology of Fox et al and live modestly but not so that it stands out much, and Liberal friends believe anything at all and still have services without preaching. I was an Evangelical friend for a long time. A Liberal Friends’ school was nearby. They were very different from us.
If somebody meets the standard for “Baptism for Desire”, then it follows they will do what they are supposed to (Water Baptism) provided that they know it’s the right thing to do and they are given the opportunity.
Let’s say they know Jesus requires them to be baptized (by water), they have the chance, but they neglect to do it anyway for some reason… that person would obviously be lacking the “desire”.
I thought the point of Baptism by Desire was that some people don’t get the chance to get baptized, like the thief on the cross. ‘would do it, if possible. but it’s not possible’ is different than ‘did it.’
The Salvation Army holds a service for a form of dedication of infants, but they do not baptize with water.
That’s one example of Baptism by Desire, which is what I was just saying. He died in such a state where he would have followed Jesus’ command and (among other things) gone through with water baptism if he had gotten the chance.
‘would do it, if possible. but it’s not possible’ is different than ‘did it.’
Yes, but they are both valid baptisms. How does this indicate that Catholics somehow believe baptism is not required?
If you meant that it is possible for a person to get to heaven without a water baptism, then yes this is correct. What I’m trying to clarify is that this doesn’t justify a person if they think, “I know I’m supposed to get baptized with water, but it’s okay if I don’t.”
Depends on what you mean by “necessary.” There are several protestant theological systems in which baptism is an act of obedience, but not necessary for salvation.
There are some who even think that baptism is not appropriate for this day and time. They are usually termed “ultra-dispensationalists” by those who disagree with them, although they often refer to themselves as “mid-Acts” dispensationalists. Traditional dispensationalists (Darby, Chafer, Scofield, Dallas Seminary, John Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, etc.) are usually refered to as “Acts 2 dispensationalists” by those holding the more extreme dispensationalist views (traditional dispensationalists DO practice water baptism, at least as far as I have observed).
I’m not sure if ALL who hold the mid-Acts dispensationalist view say that baptism is “not for this dispensation,” but I know that SOME of them do.
my grandparents were baptists (gone now). their particular church(don’t know if this is true of all baptists because i am not baptist) taught that baptism is not necessary, which i find ironic considering the name of their denom. anyways, my grandparents attended the same church all their lives. in fact, at my grandpa’s funeral, the pastor stated that he had been a member of that church longer than anyone ever had. anyways, neither one of them had ever been baptised. they stressed salvation based on faith, which my grandparents expressed through helping others and doing a lot of work for their church. the also believed in “once saved, always saved”, but that baptism is not required.
Huh? Baptism of Desire definitely refers to “inability” or other impediment, as in the case of a Catechumen, who gets hit by a truck before the Easter Vigil. His intention to be baptized is “desire” and is credited to him as fact. God does not require what cannot be done.
It looks like you might want to read other responds.
Thanks all for your information. It is good to know how others think/believe on different subjets so that it will help me have a better discussion with them.
OK, now you know how I was frequently the first student finished with my exam.
You become a Christian through baptism. That why it is sometimes called the Sacrament of Initiation. It is only through baptism that we become members of the Body of Christ. That is not the same as saying that salvation is impossible for those who through no fault of their own are not baptised, although it is true that salvation is only possible through the merits of Christ Jesus.
If that is not clear enough(lots of negatives in the same sentence), I am sorry. It is a mystery, you know.
Quakers, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, catechumens and all other groups without Trinitarian Baptism are not Christians.
I became a Christian when I was two weeks old. Before that I was a little heathen who worshipped my mother’s breast. Sometimes I was a leftist, sometimes a rightist. A centrist position was not possible because of my mother’s physical limitations.
The same is true with Baptism. Without it, you are not yet a Christian.
How about those Christians who got baptised so many times? that’s what I heard…but I might be wrong? I have no idea why one can get baptised so many times.
How about those Christians who got baptised so many times?
:shrug: Struggling to get “saved”, “maybe the next one will make me acceptable to the white gods” :rolleyes: Baptism doesn’t change skin color or cultural heritage, or get rid of psychological and financial problems.
:o First of all, I want to apologize for a failed attempt at humor. I meant to reply to my own one word answer with an explanation. I was really surprised to see other replies ahead of me.
You can only be baptised once. All other subsequent baptisms are invalid. The subject came up at lunch Thursday. At my table were five priests and our bishop. When someone is received into the Catholic Church who has already been validly baptised in another denomination that person is not rebaptised. If the proof of valid baptism is lacking, the person is baptised conditionally. Conditional baptism is only valid if there was not previously a valid baptism. You might call it “just in case” baptism.
The Anabaptist position for rebaptism has always been understood by the Catholic Church as heretical. Historically, the Amish, Mennonites, and Baptist churches evolved from the Anabaptists.