Is Baptism Required for Salvation?
Satan wants to cause FUD (a TLA [three letter acronym] known in the computer industry — standing for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) among God’s people. When the Israelites left Egypt traveling towards the promised land, just before they were to enter in they sent twelve spies to search out the land. Ten returned with bad news — there were giants in the land, and we are no match for them. Two of them said God is with us, it’s no problem, let’s go in and take it. But Israel succumbed to satan’s old trick, FUD. Therefore, they wandered for 40 years, and their children were the ones to enter into the land.
Sadly, one of the biggest areas of FUD in the church today surrounds baptism. Is it required for salvation? If so, sprinkled or dunked? Must a priest perform it to be valid? From what church? Is the water consecrated or not? Mention baptism and these are just some of the issues to be addressed; baptism can be a highly charged topic. Unfortunately, it has led to the division of many churches and people in Christianity — this ought not to be (some of the nastiest email we get is from Christians on this very subject).
The following can easily cause FUD in the church today.
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. (Acts 2:38 KJV)
That’s it! You MUST be baptized to be saved. If you haven’t been baptized, you are not saved. Is this the correct interpretation of this passage? Does the Bible teach baptism is required for salvation? In order to understand the Bible’s teaching on baptism, we must first lay out a few “ground rules” for Bible interpretation.
We must always consider the Bible in context. This means to consider the whole counsel of God — Genesis to Revelation. If we come to a verse and believe we know the interpretation of it, yet it contradicts teaching elsewhere in the Bible, our interpretation of it must be in error. For example, “There is no God” is a direct quote from the Bible (Psalm 14). But is it correct to conclude the Bible teaches God does not exist? Of course not. Therefore, that interpretation is in error.
Second, we must understand our English translations do not always provide the exact meaning of the Greek text; anyone who translates languages finds it isn’t always possible to express the exact meaning of one language into another. People who make their stand on a certain wording in a passage frequently see their position crumble when looking at another translation or consulting the original Greek. If you’re going to take a rigid stand on a passage, be sure you know what it really says in the original language!
But on to our subject; with regards to the subject of baptism we will consider it from several angles. First, taking into account other passages in the Bible where this topic is dealt with (either explicitly or implicitly). Second, analyze the underlying Greek text to insure we are not missing any subtleties in the text itself. One method of analysis we can use is borrowed from the field of mathematics — that of indirect proof. That is, you assume a statement and then follow logically from that assumption. If you reach a contradiction, your original statement MUST be in error.
For the moment, let’s assume baptism is required for salvation. What logically can we deduce from it? If we find anything that contradicts the assumption baptism is required we must admit our original assumption is wrong (since the Bible is inerrant and never contradicts itself). Any other position is illogical — it assumes the Bible contradicts itself.
Let’s take a look at the crucifixion of Jesus. During the crucifixion, two thieves were crucified alongside Jesus. But the heart of one changed during those hours, and he asks Jesus “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom..”(Luke 23:42 KJV). Jesus’ response? “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise..” (Luke 23:43 KJV). No mention of baptism. It’s difficult to believe this thief could have been baptized before he died (the Romans wouldn’t be ones to let him down, be baptized, then put him back up). Does that make Jesus a liar since he wasn’t baptized, yet was saved?
Since the thief was not baptized, and yet was saved, we must conclude baptism is not required for salvation. Some people will claim this thief was a special case — since Jesus Himself forgave his sins, he was allowed to be saved without being baptized. But is that logical? To assume so requires two different means to salvation and has no biblical proof. Not only is there no Biblical proof for that position, the Bible makes it clear there is only one way to salvation (we are saved in the same manner as the thief) — through faith in Jesus Christ.
So we have already reached a contradiction with the position that baptism is required for salvation. In effect, we need go no further. However, more evidence can be given against the requirement for baptism — consider what Paul said in Ephesians 2:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV).
But what are works? Once again, look at the context of the New Testament where works are mentioned — Matthew 7:21-23, Romans chapters 3, 4, 9 and 11, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:4-9, and 2 Timothy 1:9 (among others). Many of those passages use the same word for “works” (Strongs 2041) which Zodhiates defines as “the result or object of employment, making, or working. Labor, business, employment, something to be done. Work, deed action, something done” (Zodhiates The Complete Word Study Dictionary page 649-650).
The act of baptism is thus a work (or ritual) by definition. Paul makes clear works do not (and can not) save us (see previous references). We play no part in our salvation; even the faith we have is a gift of God. By ourselves we would never seek out God. Since works cannot save us, baptism plays no part in the salvation of the believer.
But what about the passage in Acts that seems to imply baptism is required? We must consider the original Greek — Zodhiates “The complete word study New Testament” page 397 — speaking about Acts 2:38.
The main verb in this verse is metanoesate (3340), meaning “repent”. This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated “be baptized” is in the indirect passive imperative of baptizo (907) which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command of “repent”. The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Greek is eis (1519), “unto”. Literally, it means “for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins”. This same preposition is used in 1 Cor 10:2 in the phrase “and were all baptized unto [eis] Moses.” These people were identifying themselves with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while Baptism is intended to be a testimony to other people. That is why baptistheto, “to be baptized”, is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but he is baptized by another usually in the presence of others.
Finally, consider what Paul taught the Corinthian church.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2 KJV)
Paul doesn’t mention baptism as a priority. If it was required, don’t you think he would have stressed it in a church he founded? Wouldn’t he have spent many chapters (perhaps an entire letter) teaching such an important doctrine? Yet Paul says only Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
When you consider all the evidence, it’s clear baptism is not required. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. Anything we attempt to give to God to show we’re deserving of salvation is worthless (Isaiah 64:6).
But baptism is important. As Paul teaches in Romans, it’s a way of identifying ourselves with Jesus and is symbolic of the new birth in Christ. New Christians should be baptized as a way of identifying with Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, you frequently see baptism along with a new claim of faith, which is perhaps how the “baptism is required” error creeps in. But just because they appear together does not mean you can jump to the conclusion baptism is required for salvation.
Its tragic baptism has become such a point of contention in the church. Considering the whole counsel of God several points become clear:
- Baptism is important for the Christian. Every Christian should be baptized as a proclamation of their faith, and to identify with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
- The thief on cross was saved, yet not baptized. The idea he was a special case has no scriptural support.
- Baptism is a work, and the Bible is clear works to not save us.
- If baptism is required, in what state is a person between accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and their baptism? Half-saved? If a proclamation of faith is insufficient for salvation, why do it? Assuming baptism is required requires answers to these questions.
- Any time salvation is predicated on Jesus plus something, there is an error. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. There is nothing we need to add (nor can add) to His finished work. To imply something exists we must do to complete our salvation diminishes His work on the cross and implies His death was insufficient for salvation.
- Thus, baptism is absolutely, positively NOT required for salvation.
Copyright © Darrin Yeager 1998-2010
Comments
Baptism - a work of God, not humans
You mentioned that we are, in the words of St. Paul, saved “by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9). This faith in Christ by which we are saved is conveyed to us through the Gospel, as again Paul teaches, “faith comes from hearing the message, and message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). That is to say, the Gospel is the vehicle (or means) through which God by His Spirit works faith (Rom. 1:16-17). Faith does not come to us “out of thin air.” God uses divinely appointed means, such as Baptism, to impart to us the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
God (not human beings) instituted Baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). He has attached His powerful Gospel to the visible element of water and through this, His work, He unites us with Christ and imparts to us His saving blessings. That Baptism is God’s means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6 where St. Paul writes: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life.”
The Greek phrase used here, “by baptism,” is composed of the preposition dia with the genitive case tou baptismatos. Beyond dispute, grammatically Paul is speaking about Baptism as the instrument through which God incorporates people into Christ and His saving work. It is for this reason that Baptism is regarded as such a precious treasure.
To be sure, faith alone is the instrument by which we receive the salvation won by Christ. But the Gospel and sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are God’s instruments through which He engenders saving faith in us–indeed, a miracle. Thus, there is no contradiction between saying faith alone saves, but that this faith comes to us through means or vehicles. Christians rejoice, therefore, in the words of the apostle who wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God….” (Eph. 2:8-9), a precious truth made known to us, as St. Paul further says, “through the Gospel” (Eph. 3:6).
You are correct that works (OUR works) do not save us; so if one holds that Baptism is a good work of obedience done by humans then it is obviously not enough for salvation. But this is to fundamentally misunderstand how the Scriptures everywhere describe Baptism as a divine, not a human, work. I would reject any implication that baptism is a human work, one that we do in order to earn salvation. On the contrary, the Scriptures simply teach that Baptism is God’s precious gift through which He works to impart His saving grace revealed to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is our Savior. In a word, Baptism is a marvelous testimony to the unmerited grace of God.
Baptism is not “necessary” for salvation, but it does grant us God’s blessings of forgiveness, life, and salvation… thus, you are correct that Baptism is not “necessary” for salvation, but, since it is God’s work, it is “sufficient” for salvation
(Note: this view is not treating Baptism as a kind of spiritual vaccination against eternal death–allowing us to live “sinful” lives once we’ve been Baptized. Baptism is “sufficient” for salvation in that it contains all the blessings of salvation that God himself has attached to it; these blessings are received, however, only by those who cling in faith–which itself is a gift of God!–to the words and promises attached to Baptism.)
Which baptism?
That sounds like you’re saying anyone baptized will be saved, but next you state:
Which disagrees with the first.
IF baptism is sufficient as you first said, then we’re getting into the other (in)famous discussion of eternal security (which we’ve covered lots on this blog)—can you lose it once you’ve got it?
If your second statement is true, then baptism is not sufficient for salvation.
Could you clarify your position? Are you referring to water baptism, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
“That Baptism is God’s means
“That Baptism is God’s means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6 where St. Paul writes: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life.”
The Greek phrase used here, “by baptism,” is composed of the preposition dia with the genitive case tou baptismatos. Beyond dispute, grammatically Paul is speaking about Baptism as the instrument through which God incorporates people into Christ and His saving work. It is for this reason that Baptism is regarded as such a precious treasure.”
I’m not going to deny baptizo used in the context of Romans 6 as our incorporation into Christ and His saving work. However, I will deny that it is water baptism. The grammar you describe is correct, but the application is incorrect.
Romans 6 is a powerful dialogue of the Christian being dead to sin, being so, our old man is buried with Christ, baptized into His dead, and raised in newness of life. No where is Paul mentioning water baptism, but the same baptism he mentioned to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 12:13). At our conversion, we experience a “spiritual” baptism and receive the Holy Spirit.
However, the word baptizo is used to identify both spiritual and water baptism, so it can be somewhat confusing. But, just as the site’s author says time and again: context - Genesis to Revelation.
At the beginning of I Corinthians (specifically, 1:17), Paul tells us he came to not baptize (greek word here also is baptizo), but to preach the Gospel. If he did not come to baptize, then what baptism is spoken of in I Corinthians 12:13? (this is the same baptism he spoke of in Romans 6 that gives us such freedom over sin).
Then one could argue what Peter preached in Acts 2:38. The word baptize here is also the greek word baptizo, but you have to look at the context of the word baptizo in salvation (not required, but we are baptized in spirit). These people did receive the spirit, were spiritually baptized, and were shortly physically baptized in water. But those saying if you don’t believe and aren’t baptized, then you aren’t saved are wrong because you are committing a negative proof fallacy. The only negative tied to Peter’s statement is if you don’t repent, then you are condemned (not saved). We can prove that with scripture, but that doesn’t necessarily let us know if we aren’t baptized, then we aren’t saved. We have proven if you don’t repent (and consequently, believe as is described by Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31), you aren’t saved, but we cannot prove from the Bible if you aren’t baptized, you aren’t saved (actually, we can e.g. the thief on the cross, but this is more an exercise of the NPF than it is of Biblical doctrine.). If a proposition has not been proven then it can’t be considered true and therefore must be considered false - e.g. baptism. However, in our case, it has been proven, whether or not you agree with it. But I challenge you use this and try to find passages that only convey baptism and salvation - you will only find either belief (repentance) and salvation, or belief (repentance), baptism, and salvation. NPF and the thief on the cross gives us assurance that baptism is not required for baptism.
Grammatically, you can also argue the greek word “eis” to change the verse to say “because of” the remission of sins instead of “for” the remission of sins. So our repentance and baptism are because of the remission of sins, not for them (e.g. Take 2 aspirin for your headache. This isn’t saying if you take 2 aspirin, you will receive a headache. We understand we take 2 aspirin because of our headache.). God only requires we put our faith in Christ and to believe on him. That is all that is required of us to receive grace because baptism is a work.