Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[MichaelB]

The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?


Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.


Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:


Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)


Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:


Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”


Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith. The demonstration of an individuals allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians make look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).


Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.


Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,


The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified. This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness. Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.


It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.


Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, 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. (esv, bold mine)


The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.


The New Testament also provides a number of narratives that are completely at odds with the Oneness doctrine of baptism.


Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.


The Gentiles present in the above text were filled with the Holy Spirit. These people were regenerate before baptism. Note Peter's emphasis on baptism after their own confession of faith.




Consider too the work of the Apostle in the following texts:


Acts 16:29-31 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”(esv, bold mine)


What did Paul say the jailer must do to be saved? His concern wasn't baptism. No, Paul was concerned with faith. And that is why we read this in Acts 16:32:


Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.(esv)


Paul identified did not consider his heavenly commission to be centered around preaching Acts 2:38:


1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (esv, bold mine)


I would like to address a few prooftexts that have been utilized by the Oneness movement to buttress their doctrine of baptism.


John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."


The above text cannot be considered a validation of the necessity of baptism for salvation. This is primarily do to the fact that Christian baptism had not yet been instituted at the time in which Jesus had made this statement. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand that of which He spoke. Hence the phrase, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? (John 3:10)" Therefore, the reference to water correlates to an Old Testament text:


Ezekial 36:25-28 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)


Therein we find that the water is referring to the cleansing of sin by means of a sovereign work of God. Pastor and theologian Dr. John MacArthur explains the above text in light of John 3:5 in the following terms, " Now notice, He says, 'I will wash you with water, and cleanse you of sin and place my spirit in you.' That’s the water Nicodemus would have understood. It is the water of cleansing that occurs at salvation. If you want to put it in Paul’s term “it is the washing of the water by the Word,” that occurs when you’re saved. It isn’t baptism, it isn’t physical birth, it is simply the concept of cleansing that occurs at the point of regeneration and salvation. You must have that promised cleansing and the implanting of the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom Of God. That’s what He is saying, so don’t confuse baptism, or the water that we associate with physical birth with the concept that Nicodemus would have understood.(3)" The text of Ezekial 36:25-27 prevents even the most remote possibility of the validity of the Oneness interpretation since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed; "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." Note that sprinkling is not the Oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."


The impossibility of the utilization of the text of John 3:5 to support Christian baptism as a necessity for salvation is both evident and pronounced. Yet, Oneness theologians like Jason Dulle still suggest it's validity in support of the doctrine(4). Meanwhile, obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37)


1Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(esv)


Peter is comparing the waters of the flood to Christian baptism. We see in the narrative account of the flood, that it was God Himself that saved Noah and his family from the flood (Gen 7:16). How do the waters of the flood correspond with the water of Christian baptism? The flood waters symbolized the judgment of God upon the world. Baptism symbolizes the judgment of God upon Christ, and it is that judgment that Christians have been sheltered from. Christians are free from the wrath to come not because of baptism, but the person and work baptism represents. Just as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-9 that faith is a gift from God. Faith is the means by which God saves us from judgment (Rom 5:9) and credits us with righteousness (Rom 4:3). Therefore baptism is the expression of the authentic faith possessed by the justified. To suggest that Peter is saying that baptism has a salvithic effect is to deny the obvious. The water of baptism does not cleanse us of sin says Peter; "not as a removal of dirt from the body." It is what baptism evidences; "an appeal to God for a good conscience." Baptism is the representation of union with Christ (Rom 6:1-4), and it only can save so far as it accurately represents an inward reality. Baptism can no more save a person than the flood waters could save Noah. It was the faith Noah had in his God that had a salvithic effect, so too, it is faith in Christ that saves us.


Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.(esv, bold mine)


Acts 22:12-16 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’


To Oneness Pentecostalism, this text suggests suggests a cause and effect relationship between being baptized and the washing away of sins. But, in reality this text provides no more support for their doctrine than any other. The washing away of sins is not effect of baptism, but the effect of "calling of His name." Theologian and Apologist Dr. James White provides us with the basis of this assertion:


"Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism."(5)


The notion of calling on the name of the Lord is not one that is foreign in the scriptures (Rom 10:13, 1Cor 1:2, Acts 2:21, Joel 2:32). Again, it is not the act of calling on the name of the Lord, but the underlying cause for one to call upon the Lord. Repentance and faith in our Lord cause a man to call on the name of the Lord (Luke 18:13), and these things are given to men by a gracious God (Eph 2:8-9).


Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.(esv)


The majorative Oneness interpretation understands this text to suggest that baptism is a requirement for salvation. However, this is not the case. Note what is said to be damnable or condemning according to the Lord Jesus. Is it a failure to be baptized? No. It is a failure to believe. The emphasis is on belief (or faith, as the words are synonymous). I will pose a analogy to explain:


"Whoever sings and dances will receive applause, but whoever does not sing will be removed from the theatre."


You see, the emphasis is on singing (belief) and not on dancing (baptism). While baptism has a great importance in the Christian life, as it is emblematic of one's union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, it is not salvithic. Similarly, singing and dancing are related, however they are inextricably distinct from each other in both value and result. So too is belief in Christ and Christian baptism. Our faith in the Savior is of infinite value, for it is faith apart from works that justifies (Rom 4:6). Baptism is a related work of lesser value, but of importance nevertheless. The testimony of Christ as to the importance of belief is clear and emphatic. For example, the Lord Jesus stated in John 3:18, "whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."


Within the text Jesus posits a simple truth; "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." Let us not add to that the notion that baptism and belief are the requirements for that salvation, as He did not make the statement in a vacuum. No, He followed it by stating "but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Just as whoever believes and evangelizes will be saved. Or whoever believes and feeds the poor will be saved. Or whoever believes and takes part in the Lord's Supper will be saved. The belief and the outgrowth of that belief are to be distinguished. The bottom line is, read the text, but don't impose your preconceived doctrinal convictions onto the text.


In closing, here is a quote by the "Prince of Preachers" that I think summates my personal feelings in regards to the Oneness doctrine of baptism. It should be noted that Spurgeon wasn't refuting Oneness Pentecostalism's doctrine of baptism, but the Church of England's.


"If this is your teaching, that regeneration is a result of baptism, I say it looks like the teaching of a false church, which has cleverly invented mechanical salvation to deceive ignorant, carnal minds, rather than the teaching of the most profoundly spiritual of all teachers, who rebuked Scribes and Pharisees for regarding outward rites as more important than inward grace."




C.H. Spurgeon Sunday, June 5th, 1864





--





1. UPCI website, doctrinal statements, "The Importance of Baptism"


2. "The New Birth" by David Bernard 1984 chap. 6 "Water Baptism"


3. "Questions and Answers," a comment by Dr. John MacArthur, available at http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E-1.htm


4. "First, even if Acts 2:38 does not connect the forgiveness of sins with baptism, other passages do: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Mark 16:16 (John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 also come to mind, but are not as clear as other verses). " Excerpt from "Acts 2:38 and the Purpose of Baptism" by Jason Dulle, http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/Acts238baptism.htm


5. "A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration" by Dr. James R. White

[TyRockwell]

I completely agree with your very well written article.

I also want to say that Oneness Pentecostism must be distinguished from almost all other pentecostal/charismatic denominations and non-denominationals who reject the Oneness doctrines that either baptism or "Holy Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues" are necessary for salvation.

[Chris D]

Hi, Michael. Great article, and regarding Peter 2:38, a perfect example of the use of eis is in Matthew 3:11 where John says he baptizes "for" repentance. As I explain in an article at my blog, obviously repentance was not the result of their baptism. Rather, they were baptized because they were repentant. Similarly, then, in Acts 2:38 Peter says we should be baptized because we've been forgiven.

In case anybody finds it useful, I have started a podcast and in episodes 2 and 4 I discuss the issue of baptism, and explain why I come to the same conclusion you do.

Thanks for the great article!

[MichaelB]

Hi, Michael. Great article, and regarding Peter 2:38, a perfect example of the use of eis is in Matthew 3:11 where John says he baptizes "for" repentance. As I explain in an article at my blog, obviously repentance was not the result of their baptism. Rather, they were baptized because they were repentant. Similarly, then, in Acts 2:38 Peter says we should be baptized because we've been forgiven.

In case anybody finds it useful, I have started a podcast and in episodes 2 and 4 I discuss the issue of baptism, and explain why I come to the same conclusion you do.

Thanks for the great article!

Thanks, great insight. Please visit my site too.

[arrow1]

Galatians 2:16 you mis-interpret "works of the law", it is speaking of the law of the Torah, circumcision, kosher food, etc. in other words keeping the Jewish law. It is not referring to good deeds.

Acts 2:38 you mis-interpret be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.....this verse is parallel to (Matthew 26:28). Jesus said His blood was shed "for the forgiveness of sins" , he did not shed his blood because our sins were already forgiven. The phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" is exactly the same in Greek in both passages........look it up!

Acts 10:44-48 The point of the story is that this is the first time the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, a HUGE stumbling block for the Jewish Christians. Hence the dream God gave Peter about clean and unclean food, to convince him it was OK Gentiles were to hear the gospel.
Notice 11:4 Peter explained "precisely" as it happened, then 11:15 he says, "as I began to speak" the holy spirit fell on them. He just started his sermon, how could they have believed the message if he had not finished yet. Then notice he says, "they received the spirit the same way we did in the beginning". Not the way the other christians did when they first believed but the way Peter and the other apostles did at Pentecost. That is key. The apostles were already saved, the purpose for them getting the spirit was God trying to get the attention of the Jewish audience and to fulfill the prophecy of Joel. It wasn't to save them. Likewise, the purpose of the spirit wasn't to save Cornelius and his family but to show the Jewish Christians that God was opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles....verse 18. Also notice Peter commanded that they be baptized.

Acts 16:32 The text does not say what Paul said, but logically, if he told the Jailer a similar sermon as the one Peter told at Pentecost, "repent and be baptized, and you will receive the holy spirit', well now it makes sense he was baptized immediately in the middle of the night, because that is what Paul had just told him to do.
Notice Jesus, Peter, and Paul are all asked a direct question, what do I do for eternal life.
They all answered differently.........
Jesus said, obey the commandments and another time love God and your neighbor
Peter said, repent and be baptized
Paul said, believe in the Lord
All very different answers, or are they? Depends on ones interpretation

John 3:5 you make the argument " This is primarily do to the fact that Christian baptism had not yet been instituted at the time in which Jesus had made this statement" Well, using that logic,
being born of the spirit cannot refer to receiving the holy spirit at conversion because the holy spirit had not be given yet either, John 7:39

Also, from 33 AD to 1533 AD born of water = water baptism is the ONLY interpretation in the historical record........period.
Titus 3:5 is the parallel verse to John 3:5

1 Peter 3:21 you said, "The water of baptism does not cleanse us of sin says Peter; "not as a removal of dirt from the body.
Peter clearly says baptism now saves you. Then he goes on to explain what baptism is not, it is not washing your physical body. Then he goes on to explain what it is, it is the pledge of a good conscience towards God.

Acts 22:16 just take the natural literal reading, it is pretty obvious
However, isn't it interesting that Paul met Jesus face to face, talked to Him, then he fasted and prayed for 3 days. After all that, Ananias still had to tell him, wait are you waiting for, get up and be baptized...........

Mark 16:16 that is just a silly argument. Obviously if you don't believe you would not get baptized.

Romans 6:3 it says you were buried with him in baptism and that you were united with Him in his death. In other words in baptism you are spiritually being united into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and you are actually incorporate into the body of Christ. No where in these verses is baptism called a symbol or that it represents something, (in fact you can't show me that anywhere in Scripture)

Col 2:12 God says he spiritually circumcises our heart when we are baptized, and then raises us in our faith in Christ

If you are like most Evangelicals, you go to a Billy Graham crusade, meet somenone from Campus Crusade in your dorm room or come forward at an altar call and say "the prayer".
then a week or month or a year later you get baptized. Romans 6:3, Col 2:12 and Galations 3:27 are all spoken to Christians and looking back on something they have already done.

Let's say you are a new Christian and (if we had a crystal ball) it so happens you will be baptized in 3 months. That means over the next few weeks as you sit at home studying your Bible, the above verses in Romans, Colosians & Galations would be meaningless to you.

How do you explain that?

Terry

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting article with many good points. My own discussions with many in the Churches of Christ who teach pretty much the same doctrine you refute here has allowed me to study the issue also. I certainly would have to agree with your conclusion here (the sufficiency of faith alone, without baptism or any other work/"step"), but if I had to find something to dispute, it would be your understanding of Acts 2.38.

I do not find the notion that eis ought to be interpreted as "because of" to be very compelling. Nor, as far as my studies have revealed (and I am no scholar), is such a view consensus among even sola fide Protestant scholars and commentators.
Thus Bock in his commentary of Acts: "Polhill discusses how eis can mean 'for the purpose of" or "on the basis of," suggesting baptism is on the basis of the forgiveness of sins, but this is less than certain grammatically, given that this is not a common force of eis."

The NET Bible's study notes (many of those [including the following?] within the NT having been written by Dan Wallace) says about this verse that although interpreting eis in the sense of "with reference to" is acceptable, nevertheless "subtlety and awkwardness count against it."

J.P. Holding also deals with said doctrine and verse here, saying "A key here is the word "for" (eis) - a word that can mean for or because of. If eis is taken to mean "for" then it is taken to mean that baptism is essential to salvation; if it means "because of", then it is not. However, "into" is the closest approximation of eis in this verse, so that Peter tells the crowd to be "baptized into the remission of sins.""

G.R. Beasley-Murray in dealing with eis reads 2.38 in light of Romans 10.10 where "faith turning to the Lord receives the grace sought"; hence, in Acts 2.38 "the confession made in baptism receives the salvation of God."

For me, Dunn's study Baptism in the Holy Spirit seals the deal on this. Although I do not recall Dunn explicitly dealing with the eis issue, his study argues, rather convincingly it seems to me, for water baptism in the NT as "conversion-initiation." In short, in the missionary context of the NT supports an "incorporational" view of the relationship between faith, salvation, and baptism, where the first two could be said to be experienced in the last. Admittedly, this position is open to exploitation by baptismal regenerationalists and sacramentalists who wish to argue that such was not only normal then, but was normative and remains so. However, such would require a tendentious approach to Paul's clear exposition on justification by faith. And as pointed out in the OP, that just doesn't fly.

[Cheshire Cat]

Arrow1,

I’ll let MichaelB fend for himself. But I respectfully find your exegesis to be flawed on several points.

First, the sacramentalist and baptismal regenerationalist canard that Paul was limiting his comments on works of the Mosaic Law has been refuted for quite some time. As Douglas Moo has written,

“(1) The closest Paul comes to a definition of “works” is in Romans 9.10-11, where works refers to anything that a person does, whether it is good or bad. (2) In Rom. 4.1ff the works of Abraham, in which he could not boast, clearly refer to good works — hence the potential for Abraham’s boasting (cf. Rom. 3.27). At the same time, the Abraham illustration in Romans 4 is closely tied to Paul’s argument in Romans 3.20-28 where “works of the law” is used. (3) What appears to be the case is that Paul uses “works of the law” in 3.20-28 to refer to a specific kind of works, those done in obedience to the Mosaic Law, in order to show that even these are excluded. (4) At the same time, from Romans 4 and elsewhere, it may be sen that Paul’s purpose in Romans 3.28 is to exclude all works—not just certain works or works done in a certain spirit—as a basis for justification.”

Also, in disputing the OP’s understanding of Acts 10.44f, you overinterpret Acts 11.15 at the expense of underinterpreting Acts 10.34-43, which clearly describes Peter having told a good deal of good news to Cornelius et al. when the Holy Spirit falls upon them.

With John 3.5, you say that water baptism could be no more unanticipated than spirit baptism. This is incorrect. The Old Testament contains numerous references to the anticipated eschatological age where the purifying activity of the Spirit is described in “liquid” terms, e.g. Is. 32.15; 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; 39.29; Joel 2.28f; Zech. 12.10. This is what Nicodemus should have recognized, as Jesus’ exasperation at his ignorance indicated. Jesus could not very well express genuine frustration at someone who knew nothing about a rite that had not yet come to be. It should go without saying that a focus on what “born of water” meant for interpreters after the first century is the fallacy of anachronism. More pertinent is that the image of water coming from an eschatological teacher like Jesus would have most likely generated thoughts of the promised Holy Spirit spoken of in the Tanakh.

Finally, I would just quickly say that Mark 16.16 is irrelevant whatever one takes it to say; for it is not original to the Gospel of Mark.

The remaining verses I leave for the OP and others to attend to, as I am presently short on time.

Best.

[arrow1]

Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner.

First of all, no where in the Bible is baptism called an ordinance. Second, your line of thought is one assumption after another based on your presuppositions.

Based on your line of reasoning, repentence is a command of God, therefore it is a law of God, therefore obedience to a law of God cannot save a sinner, therefore repentence is not required for salvation.

John 6:29 says belief is a "work" that God requires us to do.

When Jesus was asked, "what good thing must I do to have eternal life" he said, "obey the commandments"

When asked that again he said, "love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself", "do this and you will live"

Terry

[arrow1]

(chesire cat)
"the works of Abraham, in which he could not boast, clearly refer to good works — hence the potential for Abraham’s boasting".... you are making an assumption about clearly refer to good works.
If Abraham followed the Mosaic Law to a tee, why would he not be able to boast about that??
How was Abraham justified? God told him to leave and go to Canaan, so by faith he OBEYED, he packed up and moved. When told he would have a son at his old age he BELIEVED God. When told to sacrfice his son, he OBEYED and offered his son. He was justified by what he did, not by being circumcised.(the law) The entire book of Romans is addressed to Jews, and if read carefully, Paul spends a ton of time discussing circumcision.
Also you can read Romans 2:6-7 "to those who by persistence in doing good works, He will give eternal life".

[arrow1]

(chesire cat)
sorry, I mispoke, did not mean to say Romans was only addressed to Jews

[Cheshire Cat]

Arrow1,

There is no assumption, or did you miss Moo’s citation of scripture along with the other three points he makes? Your rejoinder is contrary to Paul’s remarks in Romans 4, specifically verses 4 and 5. There Paul specifically says that those to whom righteousness could be credited because of works are obligated to receive it. This is in contrast to the “ungodly” whom God in fact justifies (v.5). And who does “ungodly” include? Abraham (vv.9-10), and by extension all Christians (v.24).

Your conflation of the Mosaic Law and Abraham baffles me since Abraham preceded Moses. In any case, Abraham did not precede the Abrahamic covenant (and righteousness is a covenant concept), and it was precisely at its establishment that Abraham chose to believe God (Gen 15.6) where it is then said that his faith was credited as righteousness. No one disputes the necessity of good works, but they do not justify in the sense of receiving salvation.

[Chris D]

I do not find the notion that eis ought to be interpreted as "because of" to be very compelling. Nor, as far as my studies have revealed (and I am no scholar), is such a view consensus among even sola fide Protestant scholars and commentators.

I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong. However, the point is not merely that eis can be used in that way, it's that John speaks of baptism "for repentance" using the same word, and shouldn't we treat that as the closest parallel?

Besides, it is not without precedent. In Matthew 12 the Ninevites repent eis the preaching of Jonah. Did their repentance result in the preaching of Jonah? Of course not; it was the other way around.

So a) there are examples of eis being used precisely opposite of the way typically understood of Acts 2:38, and b) John speaks of his baptism "for repentance" using the word eis in this less common way. I see no reason why we should read Peter's baptism "for forgiveness" any differently from John.

[arrow1]

cheshire cat "clearly refer to good works"

my point was that the word 'good' is not found in the text, it merely just says works, not good works............there is a difference

you're right, I meant to say laws of the Abrahamic covenant, not Mosaic law.

But was not Abraham also declcared righteous prior to Gen 15 when he believed and obeyed God?

Romans 4:13 it says law (ie works of the law) following the law would be something Abraham could boast about wouldn't it?

You also had no answer for Romans 2:6

As to Chris D
Mark 1:4 John preached a baptism of repentance "for the forgiveness of sins". The people were exhorted to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance and then they had their sins forgiven in baptism.

[Chris D]

As to Chris D
Mark 1:4 John preached a baptism of repentance "for the forgiveness of sins". The people were exhorted to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance and then they had their sins forgiven in baptism.

This doesn't address the question. In Matthew 3:11 John baptized "for repentance." Did repentance result from their baptism? Also, certainly sins were not forgiven in John's baptism, where they? If so, why were the Gentiles in Acts 19 who had previously been baptized in John's baptism baptized again in Christ's name?

On the other hand, in Mark it doesn't say John baptized for the forgiveness of sins. It says John a) baptized in the wilderness and b) "proclaimed" the future baptism of forgiveness of sins. Hence the same word "proclaimed" is used in verse 7 where John proclaims the coming Messiah who would baptize apart from water.

[Cheshire Cat]

Arrow1,

I must regretfully say that I’m getting the impression that you are not reading my comments in a very constructive sense, but are intent on merely railing against anything you find unpalatable. Otherwise, I believe you would have taken note that your works/good-works bifurcation has already been rendered irrelevant by Moo’s points that I provided in my initial response to you, specifically where he says:

The closest Paul comes to a definition of “works” is in Romans 9.10-11, where works refers to anything that a person does, whether it is good or bad. (my emphasis

I have also addressed your remark on Romans 2.6 when I said,

No one disputes the necessity of good works, but they do not justify in the sense of receiving salvation.

Indeed, who doubts the necessity of prayer, or communion, or fellowship among many other things? No one. But even most, baptismal regenerationists see these things as primarily if not exclusively post-conversion events. If Rom. 2.6, and others passages like it, somehow required us to view works as necessary in the sense of receiving salvation, then that requirement would have to extend to works beyond even baptism. But of course there is a difference between justification and sanctification. If we fail to realize that, then the mistake is on us.