Question #11: Where Does The Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is Required In Order To Have One’s Sins Forgiven?
The “Church of Christ” teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a CoC elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven?
The part of the statement referring to baptism requiring the participation of an elder is false. Whether the questioner included this clause out of ignorance or purposeful maliciousness, to mislead and deceive people, is unclear. However, in response to question number two, this has already been answered and discounted as a falsehood and nothing that I, or any other preacher I know of, has ever taught as part of baptism’s requirement for salvation.
I have said, repeatedly, that it isn’t a matter of what the church of Christ teaches because there is no such thing as “church of Christ doctrine.” The church of Christ is the church of Christ because it follows biblical doctrine. If a congregation does not follow and teach biblical doctrine then it is not the church of Christ, no matter the name on the sign. The Bible doesn’t teach any where that one has to be baptized by a man in the biblical office of the eldership. Because it is not biblical doctrine it is not something that I have ever taught or would ever teach.
This is a common tactic of the skeptic in his attempt to discount biblical doctrine. He will couch something that is biblical, i.e. baptism for the remission of sins, in the context of something that is not biblical, i.e. baptism requires an elder of the church. By making that false connection the biblical statement is made to look false. Whether the one asking the question did this maliciously or simply out of ignorance I do not know, but I have no doubt that such a connection originally arose with someone making a dishonest attempt to malign biblical doctrine.
Now, to the more direct portion of the question, “where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required to have one’s sins forgiven?”
I was having a conversation with someone about Baptism one time when he, all of the sudden, said, “All you guys have is Acts 2:38, don’t you ever use any verses other than Acts 2:38?” Now, I had already referred to numerous other passages but when I made reference to Acts 2:38 it set off an automatic, preconditioned, antagonistic response to that specific verse. I smiled and reminded him of the numerous verses I had quoted before making reference to Acts 2:38.
Why is it that Acts 2:38 would set off such a response in a skeptic of the biblical necessity of Baptism? And what if it was the only verse I had offered? How many verses do you have to have from God before you are willing to obey what he said? Well, I’ll just go ahead and start out with this verse and then offer the numerous others that say the same thing.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy [Spirit].
In this verse Peter makes an explicit statement of baptism’s necessity for salvation. There is no need for inference or deductive logic from what he said. In responding to the question of “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37), Peter makes a direct statement, “repent and be baptized.” Their question was in response to the apostle’s sermon on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. They had proved the deity of Christ and convicted the audience of being party to his crucifixion. When the preaching of the gospel cut them to the heart they wanted to know what they needed to do to be forgiven the guilt of crucifying the Son of God. They obviously believed what they had heard, so Peter started with them where they were; believing the gospel they now needed to repent and be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins. It doesn’t get much clearer than Acts 2:38!
Those who have made the choice of holding to man-made doctrine above biblical doctrine have gone to great lengths to discount Acts 2:38. Even to the point of redefining the Greek words. One of the most common responses to Acts 2:38 is to say that the Greek word εἰς (eis), translated “for” in English, actually means “because of” rather than “in order to.” So, according to them, the statement “be baptized for the remission of sins,” would be more properly translated as “be baptized because of the remission of sins.” I’m a big fan of Greek Lexicons and word studies. I collect them and use them more heavily than any other study tools in my library. I have yet to find one that defines εἰς (eis), “for,” in this way. Notice a few:
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament – (always in the accusative) to, toward extend to a goal.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Louw & Nida) – to, toward, in the direction of.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon – into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
Strong’s – into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries – to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result).
These are just a few of the Greek Lexicons I have and they all say the same thing. So, to insert the definition of the word in the verse would have Peter saying, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to achieve the goal of and enter into the state of the remission of sins.”
Sometimes the skeptic will go to Matthew 12:41 in an attempt to justify their manufactured definition of the word εἰς (eis), “for.” In that verse Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees that Nineveh would be better off than them in the judgement because Nineveh repented “at” (eis) the preaching of Jonah. They say that this means the Ninevites repented “because of” Jonah’s preaching. However, that was not what Jesus was saying. The Ninevites were not spared from wrath “because of” Jonah’s preaching. That would mean they didn’t need to do anything about what Jonah said, it was just the fact that Jonah preached to them that spared them. Nothing could be further from the truth! The Ninevites were spared because they repented “into” Jonah’s preaching. They changed directions, turned around, to enter into the lifestyle preached by Jonah. Simply hearing Jonah preach didn’t do it, they had to move in the direction of what he preached.
εἰς (eis) refers to directional movement and it is never movement in a backward direction, i.e. “because of.” The only reason a person would make such an attempt to explain it as such is because of the preconceived notion that baptism is not essential for salvation. Anyone simply reading the text would have no trouble understanding what it says.
Now, even if that was the only verse referring to the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, wouldn’t that be enough to prompt your obedience to God? But that isn’t any where near the only verse commanding baptism. There are numerous passages showing the same necessity as Acts 2:38.
Jesus said, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). The skeptic of biblical baptism will point out that Christ said he who believes not shall be damned. He didn’t say he who believes not and is baptized not shall be damned and, therefore, it is faith that is essential and not baptism. While this does show that faith is a prerequisite of baptism it does not change the fact that Christ made baptism essential with the first clause of the statement. Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21). That is, it is a person’s appeal to God for salvation out of a penitent attitude of submission. If a person doesn’t believe that God will forgiven their sins then they won’t do what God said to do in order to receive that forgiveness. Just as Noah would not have built the arc if he didn’t believe that God was going to bring a flood or that the arc would save them from it. He believed God and, therefore, moved with godly fear to obey what God said (Heb. 11:7). He who believes Christ, will be baptized for the remission of sins. If he isn’t baptized for the remission of sins then he really doesn’t believe Christ!
Acts 2:41 says that people are added when they are baptized and Acts 2:47 says that the Lord adds the saved to the church. From this, it is clear that when a person is baptized they enter into salvation and are then added to the church by the Lord.
Having heard the preaching of Jesus (Acts 8:35), the eunuch said, see here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? (Acts 8:36). He knew from hearing the gospel preached by Philip that he had to be baptized in water for his salvation. They stopped right there on the side of the road and Philip baptized him (Acts 8:38).
When God confirmed to Peter, and the Jews with him, that salvation in Christ was also to be preached to the Gentiles, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy [Spirit] as well as we? (Acts 10:47). God had poured out the Holy Spirit upon those Gentiles to prove to the Jews that the gospel was to be made available to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. So Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). In response to the proof that the gospel was open to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, these first Gentile converts were baptized in water for the remission of their sins.
The Philippian Jailor was baptized the same hour of the night when he heard the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:25-34). Ironically, this is the very same person that skeptics of baptism use to teach the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. They will point to Acts 16:31 as though nothing else is said in reference to the Jailor’s conversion. However, the example of conversion doesn’t end with verse 31. It begins there! In Acts 16:32 Paul preached the gospel to the Jailor. Then, in verse 33 the Jailor is baptized. To point to verse 31 as the point of the Jailor’s salvation would be to have him saved before he even knew who Jesus was! No, he had to hear the gospel (32) so that he could believe on Christ (31) and repent of his sins (33) and be baptized for the remission of sins (33).
In Acts 22:16 Paul, in recounting his own conversion, tells how Ananias came to him and preached to him, telling him to “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Paul knew when his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ! He never said anywhere, in any of his writing or in any of his accounts of his conversion, that he was forgiven of his sins on the road to Damascus. Rather, he said that his sins were washed away when he was baptized. This is certainly in harmony with what he wrote about baptism in his letters (Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). If I was going to take anyone’s word for when Paul put on Christ for salvation it would be his own testimony, not some man who has an axe to grind on baptism!
Just as Paul said that baptism is when sins are washed away, he said in Ephesians that there is one baptism (Eph. 4:5). This is the same book where he says that those in the church have been sanctified with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:25-26). That term, washing of water by the word, is parallel with Titus 3:5 and John 3:3, 5. Biblical baptism for the remission of sins is the washing of water for the new birth (regeneration) as instructed by the Holy Spirit in his inspired word!
Many skeptics of biblical baptism attempt to make the verses commanding baptism refer to Holy Spirit baptism rather than water baptism. I’ll deal with that in response to the next question.
Similar Posts:
- God’s Second Law Of Pardon
- Who Baptized You?
- Baptism – Don’t Die Without It!
- Holy Spirit Baptism?
- Arguing With God
Brother Norm,
Thank you to allow us to study different texts of Scripture, so that many may benefit from these exchanges.
Having read the question #11, I am sad to see that there is an inconsistency in what you said in your own answer to defend water baptism as a necessity to be saved. You wrote three pages (once I printed them) to say that baptism was required to be saved. Interestingly, you mentioned a very good point in your answer when you said:
“How many verses do you have to have from God before you are willing to obey what he said?”
The essence of your saying is this:
“How many verses in the Bible do you need to see that God wills one thing to be obeyed or one thing to be true? Is it not enough to have just one? One is enough of course.”
So, to be consistent, if only one verse is sufficient to make a command liable to obedience, you will agree that only one verse is enough “to make a truth true” and biblical, right? Therefore, if water baptism is necessary to be saved, you will be forced, according to your logic, to say that the criminal on the cross will never be saved, though Christ said he was. Why? Because he has never been baptized before his death. Now, you probably will tell me that this is an exception to the rule, or that it was before the Day of Pentecost, in other words he (the criminal) was still under the Old Covenant. But this would not be a very good point at all. But I do not know what you would reply to this example. Anyway…
The problem is that we speak the same way in English. For example, if I say: “A man is wanted for a crime.” Or again, “Take two Tylenol caplets for your headache.” Does the word “for” in “for a crime” and “for your headache” should be translated “in order to commit a crime” or “in order to have a headache” rather than “because of his crime” or “because of a headache?” Yet, the word “for” is used very often in English to mean “in order to”. But it is not its ONLY meaning. This is exactly the same case with the Greek word “eis”. Yes, it means often “into” or in order to”, but this is not the ONLY meaning; and that, even in the Bible!
Moreover, in addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word “eis” is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word “eis” cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented”, or “because they were “repentant”. The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in “regard to.” The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, “eis” cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was already their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition “eis” is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins having received Christ by faith.
Now, you forgot a very important point. If we are saved by faith (as the NT says many times), then we are saved by faith when we believe, not when we get baptized, otherwise we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn’t get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation, then all new converts who come to Christ, let’s say on Saturday and have to be baptized on the next Sunday, they would be damned if they died in the night before their baptism? This viewpoint is not supported by any passage of Scripture whatsoever, let alone the fact that it is totally a false doctrine. I do not say that your viewpoint is a heresy, because I consider you as a real brother in the Lord. But it remains nevertheless a false view of the doctrine of salvation. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions — otherwise it isn’t necessary.
Please, read this comments as coming from a brother who wants to keep safe the sound doctrine, not imposing on the texts of the Bible what is not there. Besides, we must be very consistent not to disturb real Christian who are really saved and not baptized yet.
A last point. Do not misunderstand me here. I do not say that baptism is not necessary for a Christian. Jesus commanded us to be baptized and if anyone refuses to submit to this command, he is sinning against God. I do agree 100% that one who is unwilling to be baptized is call a rebellious before God, but not automatically unsaved. There is a huge difference between the two. Once again, a Christian must be baptized, not to be saved, but because Christ commands him to do so. Refusing baptism is a sinful act as any other sin in the Christian life. And if someone is not baptized or refuses to be, he/she should be taught to obey God and submit himself/herself to what is required in the Bible, even though it is not for his/her salvation. Baptism is a question of obedience in the Christian life, but definitely not a matter of getting salvation.
In Christ’s love. No offense.
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for your willingness to discuss this openly for all to see and study along with us. I just wanted to post a quick reply to let you know that I have received your comments and will be posting my response very soon. I pray that as we study through this issue together that it will be to the spiritual prosperity of us both, and all those who follow along with us.
Thanks,
Norm
1 Peter 3:21
I want to start by saying that I appreciate Richard’s willingness to engage in an open discussion on this very important subject. I pray that through our study together many will be helped in coming to the knowledge of the truth and salvation in Christ (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Richard says that if I reply to his use of the thief on the cross by saying that he lived under the Old Law or that it is an exception, that this would not be a very good argument. Well, I think they are excellent points and quite valid. Just to say that they are not valid points isn’t the same thing as proving that they are not valid points. If you are going to make your case then make it!
To use the thief on the cross as an example of someone saved without baptism, which cannot be proved in itself, is to use someone who lived under a different convent than we currently live. It is to use someone who, if he was actually saved on the cross, was saved under very extraordinary circumstances. To use the thief on the cross as an example of conversion is to do so without one bit of biblical evidence that he should be used as such. Paul, on the other hand, said that his conversion was for a pattern (1 Tim. 1:16). Paul was baptized to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16). But, rather than look at someone who said they were a pattern for those who were going to believe on him for everlasting life, Richard wants to look to someone who wasn’t even alive when the church was established as his example for salvation.
The Holy Spirit never intended for the thief to be used as an example of conversion. I’ve already answered this unscriptural argument against the necessity of water baptism in, “Baptism, Don’t Die Without It.” If Richard can find flaw with my arguments there then I would encourage him to expose it for all to see.
In response to Richard’s attempt to explain the Greek word by an English word, the New Testament wasn’t written in English. It was written in Koine Greek. So you can’t difine the use of a Greek word with how an English word is used. Greek is a much more precise langauage than English. If you want a Greek word that means “because of,” which is what Richard says eis means, then the word you really want is dia. That’s the precise Greek word that means “becuase of.” In Matt. 14:9 it is translated “because of.” In Rom. 5:1-2, it is translated “through,” our peace with God is because of what Jesus did for us. And, yes, it is translated “for” in 1 Thess. 3:5, “For this reason,” or “because of this.” So, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to understand that baptism was “because of” salvation and not “into” salvation then he certainly could have used a word that would have left no doubt whatsoever. Now, I’ll ask Richard to find me a passage with dia used to describe the purpose of baptism. Its OK, I already know he won’t be able to find it. Its not there.
This word actually is used once in connection with baptism. It is not describing the purpose but, rather, the effect of baptism. In Romans 6:4, baptism is the cause and buried with Christ is the effect. In other words, we are buried with Christ because of baptism. “Buried with him” is past tense. What caused us, or what had been done, to be buried with him? Baptism! So, the one time dia is used in connection with baptism it further strengthens its necessity. Isn’t that something!
Richard really believes he has something with the verses he presents in his effort to redefine eis. First, he uses Matt. 3:11, as “proof.” In this verse John is not saying that he baptized “because of” repentance. It is very similar to the way eis is used in regards to the Nenivites (Matt. 12:41). They did not repent “because of” Jonah’s preaching but “into” Jonah’s preaching. The same thing is being said here, in Matt. 3:11. Those being prepared for the kingdom by John were entering into a penitent lifestyle. He was preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). When they were baptized they were to bear fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8). The NKJV translation has it correct when it says “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” That’s not “becaues of” repentance but, rather, “into” or “unto” a penitent lifestyle (cf. Matt. 3:11 ASV; Matt. 3:11 KJV; Matt. 3:11 YLT).
The use of Romans 6:3, in the attempt to say that baptism is “because of” salvation and not “in order to receive” salvation, is a gross misuse of that passage. Christ died to pay the price for our sins with his own blood (Matt. 26:28; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Paul shows, in Rom. 6:3, that we enter into his death by being burried with him in baptism (cf. Gal. 2:20). When is it that we die to self and are born again in Christ? It is when we are burried with him in baptism! Notice where the Holy Spirit put the new birth in connection to baptism. In Rom 6:3, we are burried with him in baptism. In Rom. 6:4, we are raised with him in newness of life. So, when does the newness of life occur in this passage? It is placed after baptism, not before! So, baptism is necessery in order to enter into the new birth!
In connection with this we can show that it is at the point of baptism that the blood of Christ is applied to pay the price for our sins. Paul said we are baptized into Christ’s death. Christ shed his blood in his death (Matt. 27:26; Jn. 19:34). When Paul recounts his own conversion he tells how Aninias instructed him to arise and be baptized and was away his sins (Acts 22:16). In Revelation 1:5, we are told that Jesus washes us of our sins in his own blood. When do we contact that blood? Putting the verses together makes it very clear that we are “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20) when we are baptized “into” his death (Rom. 6:3-4) to be washed of our sins in his blood (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).
Richard says that 1 Cor. 10:2, refers to the children of Isreal being baptized “because of” Moses rather than being baptized “into” Moses. Now, I’m not sure how that makes any since at all. The text is referring to the children of Israel coming completely and totally under Moses leadership, baptism being used figuratively for immersion into Moses leadership, when they passed through the Red Sea on dry ground. Baptism is being used figuratively here in reference to the point when the children of Israel made the transition from wavering between Egypt and Moses to when they entered completely and totally into a state of following Moses. The reason God did what he did with the cloud and with the sea was to bring the children of Israel under Moses leadership! Baptized “because of” Moses? I think not!
This is already a very long response so I will cut it off here. I think I have already answered the rest of Richard’s argument with the article, “Baptism, Don’t Die Without It.” I do just want to add this closing statement. There is no such thing as a “real Christian who is really saved and not baptized yet.” Baptism is the point at which a person becomes saved and a Christian. Therefore, the Christian who has not been baptized is a mythical being that does not exist in reality.
I will eagerly await Richard’s reply
Richard ,
You make some very valid points in your post , and they are very interesting to me as well. I would like to take a moment thought and check into some of these. We must understand first faith does save us ! (Eph 2:8) but John 3;16 tells us all we have to do is BELIEVE so which is it? well , I believe it must be all because Paul says ALL scripture is given of God (2 Tim. 3:16) I dont feel that there are many ways of explainig away such a profound statement as Paul made in Romans 6:3 when he tells us we are baptized into Jesus Christ. Paul is very forward in this , we are also reminded in 1 Peter 1:22 that we have purified our souls by OBEYING the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is evident that Christ is the SAVER , but we must obey Him. Many scriptures speak of FAITH only in thre context , or REPENTANCE ONLY , but we know it is ALL of these things through the gracious Gospel (Acts 20:24) that saves us. Sure , it is Jesus Christ , but it is our demonstrative obedience in His command to be Baptized. I believe Jesus said it very forward in Mark 16:16 ” He who believes and is baptized shall be saved , but he who believes not shall be damned.” it is very forward and frank on this subject.
—– Notice , obedience seems to be the big thing in here 2 Thess 1:8 ” In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God , and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” it is our obedience. Noah OBEYED , or else who couldnt have been saved. Naaman OBEYED, or else his loprosy would have continuoulsy plagued him. Who healed Naaman in 2 Kings 5:1-14 ? God did! but only through Naaman being obedient.
Now , to answer your deathbed scenario we must here again go to scripture in its perfection and find what it says. It isnt always what we think , but it is God’s Word. Let me ask this question : Would Noah have survived the flood if he had not obeyed and built the ark?
If Naaman would have died before he dipped 7 times in the Jordan would he have died with leprosy ? …. I believe we know the answer of this is yes. We must remember : The Bible says in 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism saves us! John 3:16 says believing saves us ! , Eph 2:8 says Faith saves us! so I ask … which is it ? well , I believe we know it is all of these things working together to be the saving Gospel message preached by our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:24) thanks so much for the discussion !
God Bless ,
Kyle.
Not to get in the middle here, but when was the thief on the cross baptised? all scripture is for reproof, learning, and wisdom, rightly dividing the word of truth was our Lord talking to the church or to the Jew.
David,
When he spoke to the thief on the cross he was talking to a Jew. And, I didn’t say that I knew for certain that he had been baptized. But, neither does anyone know that he certainly had not. All I’m saying is that if you’re going to speculate about whether he was or not, the evidence would more strongly indicate that he had been. In the end it is an irrelevant speculation because the Lord forgave him directly while he was yet on the earth. Something that no human being living today, or nearly 2,000 years past, can say. The point being, the thief on the cross is not an example, was never meant to be an example and never will be an example of how men are saved in the Christian age.
Thank you for your response, as you put so well we don’t know, what we do know is ” I baptise you with water , and one is coming to baptise you with fire,, As the earth may have been water baptised with the flood , it may well also be baptised in fire. Just me but I don’t believe that it is a requirement today, as with Timothy and Titus one was cercumised was was not, as Paul so boldly illustates it mattered not. I think the story of the event is the thief called Him Lord, realized He had done no wrong, it was His kingdom and ask to be there, and admitted he deserved his fate, maybe this historic event is to show us it is never to late, untill it is to late, Thank you David
Uh, David. You like fruit salad don’t you. I mean, you really like to mix up apples and oranges in a really bad way. You are comparing Paul’s doing something that was expedient to make Timothy, half Jew, more acceptable to the Jewish audience with the necessity to be baptized? Wow, big time fruit salad.
David, if you are going to attribute something to a biblical writer then please give the verse where it is so stated. I know that what you are referring to, incorrectly, as Paul’s, so-called, “bold illustration that it matters not,” is in reference to 1 Cor. 1:17. For you to say that Paul’s words there illustrate that baptism “matters not” is a gross misuse of that passage. He had just finished referring to several people that he had baptized! But he says this to show that the Corinthian divisions after men was unscriptural. It doesn’t matter who baptizes you, not whether you are baptized or not.
David, these discussions are for those who want to study the Scriptures. If you persist, as I have seen you doing in other comments, to make statements as biblical fact without providing any verses to support what you say, then I am going to have to ask you to withdraw from these discussions.
Thanks,
Norm
Norm I understand how you feel and respect that this is your show, but the Bible is Gods word and the authors did not use chapter and verse. In the furture I will abide by your rules, Thanks David
Thank you very much for your comments. I will try to make it clear that baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.
First, let me say that Norm and Kyle are clearly of the same conviction. There is no question about that. Regarding David, I think that the question of when the thief was baptized has been replied by Norm when he (Norm) said that the thief could have been baptized before his crucifixion. Norm only said that, as far as he could understand the spiritual state of this man, he was likely to have been baptized, a conviction I do not share with him at all, since this is a pure argument of silence and if we want to interpret the Bible in the wrong way, that is the way we must do. Now, I do believe that Norm considers really the case of the thief as no solid ground to back up our interpretation regarding if a man should or not be baptized in the Christian age, to use his own terms.
My point now would be to demonstrate that to impose baptism in order to be saved is totally unscriptural. Here are the reasons.
1. The Church of Christ (I mean the denomination of Norm and many others) sees baptism as a necessary work to be done for a man to be saved. According to this viewpoint, baptism is tightly linked to salvation.
In other words, being saved by faith alone, as Paul taught in Ephesians (2:8) would not be true. This is very telling to teach such a thing. Is it not? Now, one could say that James says that faith without works is dead (Jas 2:17, 26). So, if we adopt this position, if anyone has to be saved, not only he has to believe and repent, but he has to be baptized also, since baptism would be seen as a “work of faith”, necessary to have the true faith, according to James. But one said this: “Baptism is understood as a confessional expression of faith and repentance, rather than a “work” that earns salvation.” (Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996, pp. 170, 179-182). This is a logical conclusion, but logic does not always mean true or biblical. For example, many atheists are “logical” according to their way of seeing things, but we would all agree that they are wrong refuting God. The Church of Christ (I mean the denomination), is thus logical with what they believe and teach. But are they biblical for that? That’s the question. I know that many reading this post would say: “We are not a denomination. We are just Christians, followers of Christ”. So, if some of you are uncomfortable with the word “denomination” let us just say that you are a group of Christians under this banner –The Church of Christ– since this is a biblical name. Now, let us go to another point to avoid attacking a straw man.
2. The Church of Christ is a part of the Church of Christ.
Now, we have to be clear here. When I write the “Church of Christ” I do not refer to the real Church of Jesus Christ made of all the elects as depicted in the NT. Rather, by the “Church of Christ” I mean the Christians who are affiliated with this family of Churches. For example, there are Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. And there is the “Church of Christ” among all the Churches that exist within Protestantism. Therefore, when I will refer to the Church of Christ as described in the Bible, I will use, from now on, the capital bold letters THE BODY OF CHRIST. This is very important to make this difference in our discussion at this point since the “Church of Christ” would be the only real BODY OF CHRIST on earth if their position on baptism were the only true one. Because most of the others do not think that way. But we know that the real BODY OF CHRIST is not only found in the Church of Christ. Real Christians exist elsewhere as well, otherwise we would be reducing the BODY OF CHRIST to just one denomination, a thing that would be totally ridicule not to say despicable. If it were so, the Church of Christ would be labeled fairly as a cult and this is not what I believe it is. I do believe that the Church of Christ is a part of the BODY OF CHRIST. Many Churches around the world are real Christian Churches and reject totally this viewpoint on baptism. And to say that the Church of Christ is the only one that teaches the truth regarding this issue would be a tremendous insult to the Lord himself who redeemed many people around the world outside the Church of Christ, who are not taught the same way on the topic of baptism. I just hope for now that, in this post and others, the Church of Christ has to be seen as a part of the BODY OF CHRIST and this latter encompasses much more people than the ones who are gathered in the Church of Christ.
3. Now, is baptism really necessary to be saved?
When we read the NT, we see some instances where baptism “seems” to be necessary for salvation (Mat. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 22:16). Now, many also believe the following things:
You should know that by baptism:
? You are saved from sins (Mark 16:16 1 Peter 3:21).
? You have remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
? Sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21).
? You enter into the church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47).
? You enter into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:3-4).
? You put on Christ and become a child of God (Galatians 3:26-27).
? You are born again, a new creature (Romans 6:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17).
? You walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-6).
? You obey Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 10:48; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
Now, let me expose to you what is missing in such a teaching.
A. Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation – The Meaning
People around the world ask this question: Is baptism necessary for salvation? The word “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word “baptisma” and this word is from a primary Greek verb “bapto,” which is also the root of the word baptize. The word means to dip, to immerse, to dye or to change the identification of. When a piece of white cloth was “Bapto” into a vat of blue dye, it no longer was white cloth because its identification was changed to blue cloth. That is the root of the meaning of the word.
The rite of baptism was a ritual in the Jewish culture from the beginning. Ceremonial washing of priests and the dipping temple utensils into water was part of the law. For instance, a priest was “baptized” into his office as a priest and it was to dedicate and identify the priest in his position. This baptism set apart the priest to take part in the temple worship and sacrifices. The baptism of the utensils set them apart for a specific use in worship. When John the Baptist came on the scene, Jews came to him to be baptized for the confession of their sins. This was not for salvation because the Lord Jesus Christ had not yet paid the price for sin. The baptism of John the Baptist was an Old Testament economy baptism and it only signified the participant’s willingness to confess his sin and therefore, John the Baptist’s baptism was for repentance (Acts 19:4).
B. Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation – The Biblical Evidence
It is interesting to note that Jesus did not baptize. “The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but His disciples” (John 4:1-2). If water baptism were necessary for salvation, wouldn’t Jesus have baptized? Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as their Messiah with signs and Messianic miracles, but He did not baptize them.
C. The Apostle Paul only baptized a few.
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 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 1:13-17). Those who teach that baptism is necessary for salvation overlook this statement of Paul. If water baptism were so necessary for salvation would not the Apostle Paul have made water baptism a central theme of his ministry, since, after all, he was sent to preach the full way of salvation? Now, many would tell me: “Wait a minute Richard, Paul may have not baptized many people, but it does not mean that he did not say to them that they had to be baptized to be saved.” Rather, the Apostle Paul taught the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” which occurs when one is born again and it is a spiritual identification as the believer is placed in Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Now, just think about this. What was the mission of Paul when he met the Lord on the Damascus road? Jesus told him (in Acts 26:17-18 – NKJV): “I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.” Now, could it be more clear than that? His mission was to preach the gospel and making it, those who believe would be delivered from Satan and the power of darkness. What is it, if not to be saved. Now, where is baptism in the mandate of Christ to Paul? Maybe you will say: “Paul knew that it was required since Jesus commanded it in Mat. 28.19-20.” But the question is not there. Are you humble and honest enough with this text that Christ sent Paul to save people through the preaching of the gospel and that ALONE? I hope you are. Now, if Paul baptized some is clear in what he said in 1 Cor. 1:13-17.
But, interestingly, the very same text said that he was not sent to baptize, yet he was sent to make people saved through the preaching. Is it not more clear that the preaching of Christ alone saves someone totally, even before the time of baptism? If you do not see that here, I wonder what text will convince you… Probably none, because your convictions are solidly based, not so much on Scriptures, but on what you have been taught. I will a final point to that at the end of my post.
D. Baptism isn’t an act that gets us into heaven – it is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord that offers that assurance.
Baptism (by full immersion as taught in the Bible) is an act of obedience that should be an immediate part of our acceptance of the gift of grace offered by Jesus Christ. But it does not mean that one who truly gives their heart to Jesus on a death bed, in the heat of warfare, or in a crashing airplane, will be kept out of heaven because they failed to be baptized. By the way, if the thief on the cross could not be cited as an example, the previous ones could. What the case of the thief on the cross teaches us is just that, baptism is not necessary to be saved, for we can make a solid case with other events as I did, events which deal with episodes that happened after the day of Pentecost. So, the events that happened before are just another point to add on the pile to make sure that baptism was not necessry any more than it is right now. As a matter of fact, the case of the thief on the cross, instead of being a bad example becomes at once an exception that just confirms the rule!
E. True faith in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for our sins is sufficient for salvation.
Christ has already done everything. By definition, his grace doesn’t require any additional “works” by us. That being said, Jesus Christ commands us to be baptized (Matthew 28:18-20), and therefore, all believers should be baptized. Immediately following Christ’s command, the Book of Acts describes the practice of administering baptism to almost every group or individual who believed in the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles (Acts 2:37-41; 8:5-13; 8:35-39; 9:10-18; 10:34-48; 16:13-15; 16:30-33; 18:8; and 19:1-6).
4. Water Baptism – What does it symbolize?
According to the Bible, the symbolism of baptism declares that three things happen to believers who are baptized: (1) they die with Christ to their old self; (2) they rise with Christ to become a new creature; and (3) they are incorporated in their new life with a living community which looks for the coming of the Lord (Romans 6:1-11). Contrary to what some denominations (or groups of Christians) teach, it seems obvious that a Christian’s baptism must necessarily require a responsible decision to accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and therefore, must be delayed until an age of reason or discretion (knowing right from wrong within God’s perspective).
In short, Jesus Christ commands baptism for His followers. Although the act of baptism does not cause eternal salvation, it seems that any believer who refuses baptism should truly examine his or her conversion.
5. Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation – The Conclusion.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? If the question is concerning water baptism, the answer is NO. We are not saved by ritual or works but by “grace through faith.” “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, water baptism does not save us, nor is it necessary to be saved. However, the baptism of the Spirit is necessary for salvation and that has nothing whatever to do with water and it is not something we do for ourselves, it is God’s gift to us at the moment we are born again.
6. A last point.
If water baptism were not necessary for salvation, why then would someone be baptized? Baptism is an outward action based on an inward reality. Baptism is a testimony that the participant has trusted in Christ as Savior and they are identifying himself/herself by submitting themselves to baptism. We cannot rest our hope of salvation on something that we can do for ourselves rather, we must recognize our need of a Savior and accept the Lord Jesus Christ’s finished work for our redemption. That finished work is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and three days later rose from the dead. Then, if we obey being baptized, it is an act of testimony to others of the reality of our personal identification with Christ. And this act of testimony is necessary since we have to be witness that Christ came into the world precisely to do that.
Interestingly, people say: Faith, repentance and baptism are necessary to be saved. Granted, Peter said in Acts 2.38 that people had to repent and be baptized. But where is faith in his command? Nowhere. Does it mean that it was not necessary to be saved? Of course it was. You can see here that dealing only with words (exegesis) does not guarantee that we can have the full picture of a doctrine. We have to understand a doctrine with other contexts that deal with the same issue. Here faith is totally absent. If I dealt with the passage only in scrutinizing words as you did (especially “eis”), I would have to defend myself that faith is not really required to be saved; and that, because this is not mentioned. Obviously, it is nonsense to argue that way. But I just want you to know that words are not the ONLY keys to understand a texts. The context is the real key. And definitely, baptism is not required to be saved, otherwise a man like Paul would have been sent to preach AND to baptize, a thing that he denied himself.
No offense.
Richard
Richard,
I do want to thank you for your interesting take or should I say slant on spiritual matters. It does take conviction to take such a stand as yours, but even sincerity can be misplaced as was Pauls.
Your mention of James, sounds a lot like how Marting Luther felt about the book. I guess you hate as much as he did because he teaches against your doctrine.
As for logic, when logic disproves the believes of others, is when they have no use for it, and begin to demean its use. In order to logic to be true or biblical, its propositions must be BOTH valid AND sound in order for the conclusion to be true. This is where the atheistis use of logic fails, as does the denominationalist.
As members of the Lord’s one and only true church, we simply rightly divide His Word, instead of twisting and leaving out.
We understand the “denominational” view of the “BODY OF CHRIST” whereby your master the devil has deluded the minds of men into believing it includes differing fruit. It is an unsightly body, with a multitude of heads, and it’s members are unable to control themselves for they each of a mind of their own. It is more of a circus freak, than a viable autonomous body.
Call it what you like, despicable, or ridiculous, but you as well as every other false teacher of denominationalism are fighting against God – not us (Acts 5:33-39).
Again, it matters not one whit if 5.9 billion people believe that baptism is unnecessary for salvation – this is not a majority rule matter, it is a matter of total submission to the will of God, not what others might think. According to your logic, the Holy Spirit gave us Matthew 7:13-14 backward! Even Matthew 7:21-23 shows us there will be many who assume they are right when in fact they are not, for Jesus says in that text, “depart from Me, I NEVER had a saving relationship with you.”
The “BODY OF CHRIST” consists of ONE and ONLY ONE group of people who believe and teach one and the same doctrine. Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and the multitude of other denominations in the world do not obey this strict command. Jesus prayed that we all be ONE – UNITED – in doctrine, in worship, in organization (John 17:20-21). How is it possible for the “BODY OF CHRIST” to obey this command and yet ALL believe and teach something different? The answer is that they can’t.
Jesus said we are His friends, IF we do whatsoever He says (John 15:14), He said that IF we abide in Him and His WORDS abide in us then and only then can we be His disciples – members of the “BODY OF CHRIST” (John 15:1-10). There are so many examples of how we are not allowed to believe and teach differently. We are not allowed to organize the church differently than the pattern of the Bible. Yet, every denomination does exactly the opposite. So how could they possibly make up the “BODY OF CHRIST?”