Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

[Fez]

By whom are you being baptized?

Mark 1:6-8 NKJV

6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Being dunked into a body of water does not seal your salvation nor does refusing being dunked undo your salvation.

Do you believe that a person who persistently and willfully rejects the commandments of Jesus will be saved?

Depends how you interpret the commandments. In this case, as in others, the RCC interprets them differently.

Jesus knows our hearts and hears our prayers, not men.

[Guest shiloh357]

If Baptism is necessarily for salvation, it would prohibit anyone from being saved if they were not baptized immediately and/or do not have immediate access to water.

If a person were saved on an airplane and the plane crashed such an individual would not be saved IF salvation is necessary. for salvation.

Keep in mind that if it is necessary, there can be no exceptions. So anyone who is baptized immediately for any reason and were to die before getting baptized would not be saved.

The "necessary" condition means that some people would be, due to no fault of their own, excluded from salvation even IF they accepted Jesus and believed the Gospel. That is unacceptable.

[other one]

If Baptism is necessarily for salvation, it would prohibit anyone from being saved if they were not baptized immediately and/or do not have immediate access to water.

If a person were saved on an airplane and the plane crashed such an individual would not be saved IF salvation is necessary. for salvation.

Keep in mind that if it is necessary, there can be no exceptions. So anyone who is baptized immediately for any reason and were to die before getting baptized would not be saved.

The "necessary" condition means that some people would be, due to no fault of their own, excluded from salvation even IF they accepted Jesus and believed the Gospel. That is unacceptable.

Shiloh, we had that happen years ago when I was in high school and it really caused a lot of hard feelings within our classmates, and caused me to leave the church for two years. (I grew up in a Church of Christ and that was the first time I had been introduced to our beliefs about having to be baptized by a Church of Christ member to be saved..... Not only did they teach manditory baptism, but by one of our own..... I rebelled and i'd give most anything to have those two years back.

[Smalcald]

It is no more necessary than communion.

As Mark says in the very verse that it says to be baptized it says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." I think this is intuitive to most Christians.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is no more necessary than communion.

As Mark says in the very verse that it says to be baptized it says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." I think this is intuitive to most Christians.

If a person who knows that Jesus wants them to be baptized refuses to do so, I believe that this could jeopardize their salvation.

Do you disagree?

A person who has truly put their trust and faith in Jesus and Savior and Lord would have no reason to refuse it. Their heart would be eager to serve and obey the Lord. A person who says they belong to Christ but stubbornly refuses to obey Christ evidences that their profession of faith is not genuine.

[Smalcald]

It is no more necessary than communion.

As Mark says in the very verse that it says to be baptized it says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." I think this is intuitive to most Christians.

If a person who knows that Jesus wants them to be baptized refuses to do so, I believe that this could jeopardize their salvation.

Do you disagree?

It would indicate a problem with their faith, something is wrong. It would be the same as saying I refuse to pray to God, prayer is not necessary for me. Basically what Shiloh said.

I think the cases people were talking about though were situations in which people are not able to be baptized for some extreme reason, in those cases not having an opportunity for baptism is not going to condemn you, it is like not having the opportunity to take communion before you die.

But willfully refusing is different.

[Smalcald]

It is no more necessary than communion.

As Mark says in the very verse that it says to be baptized it says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." I think this is intuitive to most Christians.

If a person who knows that Jesus wants them to be baptized refuses to do so, I believe that this could jeopardize their salvation.

Do you disagree?

It would indicate a problem with their faith, something is wrong. It would be the same as saying I refuse to pray to God, prayer is not necessary for me. Basically what Shiloh said.

I think the cases people were talking about though were situations in which people are not able to be baptized for some extreme reason, in those cases not having an opportunity for baptism is not going to condemn you, it is like not having the opportunity to take communion before you die.

But willfully refusing is different.

I agree completely.

So for those to whom baptism is available, refusal could jeopardize their salvation, and in these cases, baptism might be required for salvation.

I think this is a fascinating point. I think for you the baptism itself would solve the above problem, even if the person did not want to be baptized but did it to make his family happy lets say. I think a more "protestant" view would say that the willful desire itself to refuse is the essential problem which would indicate someone does not have faith and thus salvation, a baptism will not solve that. Although I think we are closer on this point than it seems.

Unbelief according to Mark is alone what condemns us, belief would lead us to desire baptism, to desire communion, to desire to please Christ and follow His commands as best we can.

So if we turn that around a little, lets say we did not really believe in our heart any of this; but got baptized and took communion, went through the sacraments etc, to please others or out of tradition, I would say those things do not help the person in that situation. They are still of course all valid, but they offer the person who is in unbelief nothing. In fact I would say if you do not believe you do yourself spiritual harm by going to Church, by taking communion and so forth because it may give you a false sense that somehow every thing is okay, you never know your real condition. In addition St. Paul warns us about real physical and spiritual harm that comes from taking communion in an unworthy manner without faith and without discerning the Body of Christ. An honest atheist will sometimes be closer to finding God than an unbelieving hypocritical Christian going through the motions.

The counter argument of course is you get people into Church even if they don't believe and things might rub off on them.

But it is an interesting discussion.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is no more necessary than communion.

As Mark says in the very verse that it says to be baptized it says "but he who does not believe will be condemned." I think this is intuitive to most Christians.

If a person who knows that Jesus wants them to be baptized refuses to do so, I believe that this could jeopardize their salvation.

Do you disagree?

It would indicate a problem with their faith, something is wrong. It would be the same as saying I refuse to pray to God, prayer is not necessary for me. Basically what Shiloh said.

I think the cases people were talking about though were situations in which people are not able to be baptized for some extreme reason, in those cases not having an opportunity for baptism is not going to condemn you, it is like not having the opportunity to take communion before you die.

But willfully refusing is different.

I agree completely.

So for those to whom baptism is available, refusal could jeopardize their salvation, and in these cases, baptism might be required for salvation.

That is stilling missing the point. If they refuse, it is not jeopardizing salvation. It is proving they were never saved to begin with. A true believer, by nature would not refuse to be obedient.

To say it is "required" for salvation would not allow any exemptions for any reason. If it is "required" then one's lack of opportunity to be baptized would not afford them a pass on that obligation. To argue that it is required or necessary in only certain circumstances is internally inconsistent.

[TheNewMan]

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

by Matt Slick

Video Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Opens in new window at youtube.com site

One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No, water baptism is not necessary for salvation." But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like '...baptism that now saves you...' (1 Pet. 3:21) and '...Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...' (Acts 2:38)?" These are good questions and they deserve a good answer, so we will look at these verses later. But for now, the reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is because we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8), not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person. But, we are saved by faith alone and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.

Baptism is not simply a ceremony that is undertaken after one believes in the Lord, as if they are already saved from belief alone. It is an act of obedience, as we have been commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). This will become more apparent and become of more importance later on in my response.

If we are saved by faith, 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 necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions -- otherwise it isn't necessary.

A man who finds himself on his death bed has, in his life, had many hundreds of opportunities to obey the gospel and be baptized. If he waits until it is too late to fully obey our Lord, he is paying the price for his procrastination, and his unbelief earlier in life. It is completely and utterly his own fault, and the fact that he spurned the Lord's commands does not disprove the fact that baptism is commanded of us and saves us through grace from God. Also, infants, having no knowledge of sin or the commandments of God, are not accountable for their actions. As soon as a human being is able to confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe in his or her heart that God raised Him from the dead, that human being is able to be saved, because they have the capacity to believe or disbelieve on the Lord, discerning between right and wrong.

Also, another serious problem with your argument is that you fail to realize what faith is. Let me explain it to you.

Faith, if it is not outwardly manifested by obedience, is worthless, and is not faith at all. You seem to believe that faith is something harbored in the soul, saving them prior to obedience to God. However, faith and obedience are one, because true belief and faith in God will cause a person to live as God ordains. This is made clear in a passage in James 2, verses 14-26.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

If you understand what James is saying, then you realize that faith that leads to salvation is always accompanied by obedience, and we are clearly shown in Mark 16:15-16 that we must be baptized to be saved. Having realized that faith and obedience are one, you will realize that verses like Romans 10:9-10 are not discounting the necessity of works, but simply making implication of their existence parallel to the existence of one's faith. Without works, faith is dead.

Now, in order to more thoroughly look at this issue, I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, and then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is a ceremony that represents an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.

The funny thing about this is that you have come so close to the truth, except for one fact. Baptism represents only one inward reality: belief in Jesus. Faith. And as I have already explained to you, with help from James, obedience is the manifestation of faith. Therefore, baptism is the manifestation of faith. We are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38), so our sins are not removed, nor are we raised with Christ until AFTER we are baptized (Romans 6:3-5; Acts 22:16), just as Saul was not saved until he was baptized-- Acts 9:6-18 (having believed in Jesus, addressing Him as Lord, Jesus tells Saul that he must go to Damascus to learn what he must do to be saved). Baptism represents Christ's burial and resurrection, and it is the answer of our Good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21), and because of our good conscience, and our obedience (remember, we are obeying God, because He has commanded us to be baptized), God washes us clean through the sacrifice of Jesus, His blood being our propitiation. Belief alone does not save us, or else the demons mentioned in James 2 would have been saved through their belief. I would like you to show me in the Bible where it says that Christ's blood washes away our sins BEFORE we are baptized.

An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be entered into a covenant with God. There could be a lot of different answers given but the point remains: it was done; infants were entered into a covenant relationship with God -- through their parents. Wow. The Bible never says that infants enter into a covenant relationship with God through their parents. Did you just make that up?

In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed and circumcision, which ultimately represented the shed blood of Christ in his covenant work of redemption, was a foreshadowing of Christ's work.

You misunderstand circumcision. The Israelites were commanded to be circumcised, because the foreskin is very unclean, and unsanitary. God lengthened their time-span by commanding them to take it off. The circumcision mentioned in Colossians 2:11-12 represents the cutting away of the filth of the flesh, and being clean from our sins.

Christ's blood in the new covenant is parallel to animal sacrifices in the Old Covenant, not circumcision in the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:11-22 shows us the comparison between animal sacrifices that had to be continually offered to push back the sins of the Israelites, and the spotless blood of Christ that can wash away our sins once and for all, if we are obedient to Him."

Baptism doesn't replace the Old Testament circumcision. The symbolism is nothing alike. Christ cleanses our souls from sin after baptism, with His circumcision. We are buried with Him in baptism, washed in His blood. Blood and circumcision are never related in the Scriptures.

If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).

Reread Colossians 2:12, which says we are raised with Christ in baptism, through faith. We are raised with Christ as a RESULT of baptism. Baptism is not the result of being raised with Christ.

Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism.

Everyone who believes in the gospel will be saved. That is true. Why? Because if you believe that Jesus has the power to save you, you will be obedient to Him, and do what He tells you. Remember in James, how he said that the Demons believe in God? Paul is obviously not talking about mere acknowledgement of Christ's sacrifice here. No one has ever been saved for merely acknowledging God's existence and not obeying Him. This belief is obviously the belief that James talks about in chapter two of James, belief shown through works, accompanied by works and made perfect by works, but worthless without works.

If you believe in the gospel, your faith will compel you to obey God. If it does not compel you, you do not have true faith, your faith is worthless. What is one of God's commandments that we must obey? To be baptized. (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21)

What is the Gospel?

It is clearly the gospel that saves us, but what exactly is the gospel? That too is revealed to us in the Bible. It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here.

Guess what IS mentioned here. Belief. Refer to the last red text, or even back to James 2. This belief is accompanied by obedience. It even mentions it in this passage. "HOLD FIRMLY TO THE WORD I PREACHED TO YOU. OTHERWISE, YOU BELIEVE IN VAIN." If we hold firmly to the word (that is to say, if we do the things God has told us) we will be saved. If we do not, our belief is in vain.

You have defined the gospel basically as the acts of Christ, correct? His teachings, His death, His burial, and His resurrection. So basically, the gospel is news about Jesus. So if I said that I "preached Jesus" to someone, would you say that I told them about the gospel? If I preached Jesus to someone, I would have to tell them about His sacrifice and his resurrection, those are the most important parts of His life. I think you would agree with me on these points.

So consider Acts 8, starting in verse 26, when it mentions Philip coming upon the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch is reading a prophecy of the Messiah. He asks Philip for help in understand the Scripture. It says in verse 35 that Philip "preached Jesus to him." In the next verse, it says that they came upon a body of water and the eunuch asked Philip if he could be baptized. Now, if the gospel--that is to say, Jesus death, burial, and resurrection--had nothing to do with baptism, why would the eunuch ask about it? Obviously because Philip mentioned it. Philip was fulfilling Jesus commandment in Mark 16:15-16 to teach the gospel to every creature and baptize them for salvation.

Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "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..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism is not necessary for salvation.

You took that verse well out of context. The reason Paul was glad that he had not baptized any of them, is because there was dissension among the Christians at Corinth, and he didn't want them to say they were baptized into his name. You carefully left out verse 13, which says "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

No, Christ was crucified for them. Therefore, they were crucified in the name of Christ.

Paul didn't NEED to be sent to baptize. It's not as if he's the only one who could physically baptize someone. Any Christian can baptize another Christian. But they have to hear and believe the gospel before that can have the faith necessary to be obedient and repentant to Christ. You're making a false and ungrounded conclusion about baptism from this verse, contradicting it to 1 Peter 3:21, which plainly says that baptism DOES save us. (keep reading)

Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-48 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers (see 1 Cor. 14:1-5). Also, unbelievers do not praise God. They cannot because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved, and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply is not an exception. It is a reality.

I think you forgot what Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-23.

"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'"

The men that Jesus condemns here obviously believe in Jesus. They call Him Lord, and they even had spiritual gifts, which they performed in His name! Why then were they not saved, if they obviously believed? Because BELIEF ALONE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They practiced lawlessness (which is described as sin in 1 John 3:4). Therefore, despite their belief, they were not saved because they were not OBEDIENT to Jesus, even though they had spiritual gifts. Belief is not a sign of being saved, neither is spiritual gifts, obviously.

And how can you say Cornelius and his household were unbelievers? It says in Acts 10:1-2 that Cornelius feared God with all his household. They BELIEVED in God, but they were not saved! That's why God sent Peter to Cornelius, to save Him. And through Cornelius, the gospel was opened to the Gentiles.

Let's Suppose...

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism is not necessary for salvation. If he goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, is not enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

Yeah, the only argument you listed for faith saving a man is by saying "of course he is (saved)." That doesn't make it true. Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and as in the example of a man on his death bed, the person in THIS example (considering that he can walk across the street to a local church) has had HUNDREDS of opportunities to obey the gospel and be baptized. Just because he was stupid and didn't watch for cars doesn't mean he is pardoned from obedience. He should have taken the earliest opportunity to be saved. Actually, he shouldn't have stepped in the middle of the road when a car is coming. That guy is just all around stupid.

And what is it with everyone adding the word "free" in front of the word gift in Romans 6:23? Let me explain something to you.

Imagine you're a mass murderer, and you're in prison for like under a ten trillion dollar bail. There is no way you can pay that debt. Then, suddenly, I come to you with ten trillion dollars and tell you that if you volunteer to work in the prison library and teach so-and-so how to read, I will pay your bail and set you free. So you volunteer at the library, and you teach so-and-so how to read, and I pay your bail. Did you earn the ten trillion dollars? Not remotely. And yet, if you had not done as I asked you to do, I would not have paid your debt.

We are in a similar situation with Christ. The debt of sin is greater than anything we could ever pay. But God offered up his son as the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10), because as we can see from Hebrews 9, no other sacrifice could cleanse us from sin. But the condition is that we obey Him. Remember Matthew 7:21, which says that only those who do the will of God will receive salvation.

That's why Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved by grace, and not of works, lest we should boast. We aren't saved by works!! We are saved by grace, but works are the condition to be met before God will give us the gift of salvation. Faith, as mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9, is faith implying obedience, or else that faith would be useless to us (James 2:14-26).

/color]

Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation. That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4.

Those verses don't seem to have anything to do with "completing salvation." However, there is something WE must do, to have salvation. We must obey Christ. Hebrews 5:9 says, "And having been perfected, He (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

He gives salvation to all who OBEY Him. And once again, we are commanded to be baptized. (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21)

All right, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I will address those now, but because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact sufficient for a book in itself, I will only address a few verses and then only briefly.

Baptism Verses

John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

Some say that water here means baptism, but that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once -- through his mother's womb. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he cannot enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.

Guess what. At this point, the kingdom of God hadn't been established yet either. Hebrews 9 tells us that the New Covenant--called a testament--could only be established after the death of the testator (Christ), because the testament is of no effect while the testator (Christ) is alive. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Jesus was saying that he who was baptized into the baptism of John would enter the kingdom of God, since the baptism of John was not practiced according to the Word of God when the kingdom of God was in effect.

And your point about the water being the water of the womb is not important, considering my previous paragraph. The baptism He talked about (that entered us into the kingdom of God) could only enter us into the kingdom of God when the kingdom of God exists. It did not at that time, and neither did the baptism He was talking about.

I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You decide for yourself.

Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.‘"

This verse is often used to say that baptism is part of salvation, but we know from other scriptures that it is not, lest there be a contradiction.

And yet you're making a contradiction against 1 Peter 3:21 when you say that, because the verse says baptism saves us. Poor argument.

What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness."

Of course they are meant to be understood as being related to each other. If you do not repent of your sins, you will not be saved. However, because of the word "AND," baptism is also meant to be understood as being related to each other. The reason the word "repent" would be plural (if it even is in this case) is because he's talking to multiple people, obviously. The reason the word "sins" is plural is because, first of all, people commit more than one sin in their lifetime, and second, each person has their own sins and he is addressing multiple people. Are you excluding baptism in this verse simply because it isn't plural? Are you serious? How would you pluralize "be baptized"? "Be baptizedes?" He is obviously addressing everyone when he tells them to be baptized, because there is an understood subject (you) before the word "repent." The subject of that sentence is the word you, because it is understood to take place before the word repent.

Also, saying "each of you get baptized," is the same as saying "all of you get baptized." I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with that point, but it proved that he told them ALL to get baptized.

Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, "repent and be baptized."

Repentance is only a gift from God insomuch as we cannot understand repentance without God. He doesn't give it to us unless we choose to repent of our own accord. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wishes all would come to repentance. If it was simply up to Him to dish out the repentance, then all men would be repentant. But we know that isn't so. The choice is ours. We have freewill.

Also, please notice that there is no mention of faith in Acts 2:38. If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned? Simply saying it is implied isn't good enough. Peter is not teaching a formula for salvation, but for covenant obedience, which is why the next verse says that the promise is for their children as well.

Oh my goodness. Wow. Are you serious? You contradicted yourself, as well as the Bible. You already said that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected in the verse, and now you're saying this verse isn't about what is necessary for salvation? Do we not have to be forgiven of our sins to be saved? Do we not have to turn from doing wrong to be saved? How can you believe that, when Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death, and when 1 John 3:4-9 says that if we sin we do not abide in God?

And can you honestly believe that if someone does not have faith in God, that they would repent of their sins and be baptized? Faith is not only implied, it is stated, because faith generates works (again, reference James 2:14-26) and repentance and baptism are works of obedience. Without works, faith is dead, and where there are works, there is faith.

1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This is the only verse that says that baptism saves, but the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?" or "Baptism corresponds to what?" The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you," (NASB).

Some think that the baptism corresponds to the Ark because it was the Ark that saved them, not the floodwaters. This is a possibility, but one of the problems is that this interpretation does not seem to stand grammatically since the antecedent of Baptism is most probably in reference to the water, not the Ark.

But, water did not save Noah. This is why Peter excludes the issue of water baptism being the thing that saves us because he says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Peter says that it is not the application of water that saves us but a pledge of the good conscience. Therefore, baptism here most probably represents the breaking away of the old sinful life and entrance into the new life with Christ -- in the same way that the flood waters in Noah's time was the destruction of the sinful way and, once through it, known as entering into the new way. Also, Peter says that the baptism is an appeal of a good conscience before God. Notice that this is dealing with faith. It seems that Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith.

No. The verse clearly says that baptism saves us, and it even defines baptism as "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Baptism IS the answer of a good conscience, and it says it saves us. Your whole explanation about the comparison between Noah's salvation through water, and our salvation through water (the act, not the water itself) does not contradict the passage that it is saying baptism saves us. Noah's obedience saved him from the water, and our obedience in that we are baptized saves us, because we are doing what God would have us to do. The only false thing you said was when you separated baptism and the answer of a good conscience. They are one and the same in that verse. That is clear. You can in no way logically deny that it clearly says baptism saves us. Baptism IS the answer of a clear conscience to God, and that verse says that it saves us. Clear as crystal, simple as pie. And of course it is dealing with faith. We cannot be saved without faith, for "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6)

Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)? Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name.

You are misinterpreting Colossians 2:11-12. The circumcision made without hands is the forgiving of sins that Christ does for us through the sacrifice of His blood, which is sufficient to pay the debt of sin for us. As Peter says in Acts 2:38, if we repent and are baptized, we will receive the remission of sins. Therefore, when we are baptized Christ circumcises us and cleanses us of all sins. Notice the contrast in verses 12 and 13. Baptism symbolizes our burial with Christ (v. 12) and our resurrection with Christ, just as He was resurrected. Then, 13 says, when we are dead in Him (Romans 6:4) and dead to trespasses and uncircumcision, we are made alive (as in the resurrection that baptism represents, according to verse 12) together with Him, having been forgiven of all our trespasses. The circumcision and the baptism occur at the same time. We are circumcised, or forgiven of our sins, because we have answered God with a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21).

Rom. 6:4, "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."

Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection. Obviously we did not die -- unless, of course, it is a figurative usage. And that is what it is here. The figure of baptism represents the reality of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It is a covenant sign for us. Remember, a covenant sign represents the covenant. The covenant sign of baptism represents the covenant of grace which is that covenant between God and the Christian where we receive the grace of God through the person of Christ by means of his sacrifice.

Yeah, you're right. But that doesn't contradict the theory of baptism being necessary for salvation. The verse clearly says that they were buried with him through baptism into death IN ORDER THAT they may live a new life. Baptism made it possible for them to live a new life.

Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the reality. The reality is the blood of Christ.

Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ. It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc. In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is meant here.

And you think that we don't need to be identified closely with Christ in order to be saved?

Conclusion:

There are several things needed for God to save us: faith (Hebrews 11:6; Ephesians 2:8), confession that Christ is our Lord (Romans 10:9-10), repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9), baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:11-13; 1 Peter 3:21) and obedience til death (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 2:10). Baptism is just one part of the acts necessary before God will consent to grant us with salvation, which we could never earn ourselves. But it is a part, and without it, there is no salvation.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TheNewMan

[SoGrateful]

There are several things needed for God to save us: faith (Hebrews 11:6; Ephesians 2:8), confession that Christ is our Lord (Romans 10:9-10), repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9),

baptism (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:11-13; 1 Peter 3:21) and obedience til death (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 2:10).

Baptism is just one part of the acts necessary before God will consent to grant us with salvation, which we could never earn ourselves. But it is a part, and without it, there is no salvation.

What do you say to ...

“Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17).