Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[Chris D]

daniel1212
It is interesting to note that Phillip, who was one of the original
eleven at Pentecost, was not able to lay hands on and pass on the HS to the Samaritans. He had to wait for Peter & John to do that. Yet, it also says Simon followed him everywhere and was astonished by the signs & miracles he saw.

This doesn't mean anything. As I demonstrate in my podcast, throughout Acts God is broadening the scope of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: first Jews and proselytes in chapter 2; then Samaritans in chapter 8; then Godfearers in chapter 10; finally other Gentiles in chapter 19. The text doesn't say Philip was "unable" to lay hands on and pass on the HS to the Samaritans. It doesn't say he laid hands on them at all. All it says is that when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had accepted the gospel, they came and laid hands on them, at which point they received the Holy Spirit. The most that can be inferred from this is that God wanted Peter and John to witness the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a testimony that the scope of the indwelling had increased.

[Chris D]

In Acts 2:38 convicted souls are told to repent and be baptized in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which the apostles had evidence by speaking in earthly tongues unknown to them, though Jesus had previously breathed on them saying, "receive ye the Holy Spirit, (Jn. 20:22)...

Daniel, if I might humbly disagree with you, I do not believe Jesus' words in John 20:22 should be taken to mean the apostles actually received, in fact, the Holy Spirit at that time. It certainly doesn't say they did. As I explain in episode 4 of my podcast, the sister passage in Luke 24 appears to record the same events, and in it Jesus says they would receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The words recorded in John, then, are not the giving of the Holy Spirit at that time, but the promise of a near-future indwelling of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

That's my understanding, anyway, for what little it's worth :)

[daniel1212]

It is interesting to note that Phillip, who was one of the original
eleven at Pentecost, was not able to lay hands on and pass on the HS to the Samaritans. He had to wait for Peter & John to do that. Yet, it also says Simon followed him everywhere and was astonished by the signs & miracles he saw.

You mentioned "not of any merit of works is one justified".

Could you perhaps site anywhere in the NT where water baptism is 'specifically' referred to as a work, or a symbol, or that it represents something or that it demonstrates something or that it signifies something. Also, is there any mention of a believer being saved, and then baptized the following day or following week?
Just curious...........[/quote]

What is interesting is that as the texts states that the disciples "were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles," and thus Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, (Acts 8:1,14,15) indicating that this Phillip was one of the seven deacons, whom the apostles had laid hands on in ordaining them to that office. Acts 21:8 also refers to "Phillip the evangelist, who was one of the seven." And the first martyr was deacon Stephen, who was "full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people." (Acts 6:8)

Certain prophets and teachers at Antioch are recorded as laying on hands in the N.T. church, (Acts 13:1,3) and that is was a pastoral function is evident in Timothy 5:22. But only the apostles and perhaps Ananias seem to have conveyed the Holy Spirit, and perhaps it was because Philip was not a pastor that this function was not exercised by him, or that God was confirming the authority of the apostles. In the O.T., Moses had laid his hands upon Joshua, with evident results. (Dt. 34:9) But it is also evident that God can work outside human instrumentality. (Ex. 31:3; Num. 11:17) http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ACTSinActs.html

As for your request for an explicit reference where water baptism is 'specifically' referred to as a work, such a demand for an formal explicit statement is not warranted when it can be proven by principal, and if prayer is labor, (Col. 4:12) and the Bible indicates "works" are any volitional act, (Jn. 5:17; Acts 10:35; Rm. 2:10) with "him that willeth," (Acts 9:16) being the exclusion of works as the basis for salvation, then we can only classify baptism as a work. But which even a "sinner's prayer" is, versus an act of grace which draws humans (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) and grants and enables repentance, (Acts 11:18) and gifts them faith. (Eph. 2:8,9) And what happens in true baptism or in effectual confession of the Lord Jesus is truly not any work of man.

But the exclusion of works as the basis for salvation need not exclude any human instrumental response, by God's grace, in appropriating justification, although in Calvinism the case is made that regeneration must precede confession, but the critical issue is that it is not because of any merit of the human response that one is justified by, but by faith being imputed for righteousness. (Rm. 4)

As for a text that states that baptism is a symbol, or that it represents something or that it demonstrates something or that it signifies something, that is provided by 1Pet. 3:21, in which baptism is referred to as "the like figure, (antitupon), denoting “a representative, counterpart”, versus its fulfillment, as in Heb. 9:24 in distinguishing between the type and the true tabernacle. Rm. 6 also evidences that baptism typifies death and resurrection. But simply because something is symbolic does not mean literal obedience is not required, as the ordinance of the Lord's supper illustrates, and to do so hypocritically (by selfishly not recognizing and so treating other members of the body of Christ as members), can result in death. (1Cor. 11:17-34)

Also, is there any mention of a believer being saved, and then baptized the following day or following week?

No, baptism was either the occasion of their salvific confession or quickly subsequent to it, as it should be today. But worse than this minimizing of its importance is paedobaptism, which i find unwarranted and conducive to promoting a false confidence of salvation.

[daniel1212]

You may certainly humbly disagree, as i can see that this text could allow that interpretation, though it could also be used to distinguish between a partaking of the Holy Spirit in some way of reception versus the baptism or immersion (not sprinkling) with the Holy Spirit.

Have a God night.

[Chris D]

You may certainly humbly disagree, as i can see that this text could allow that interpretation, though it could also be used to distinguish between a partaking of the Holy Spirit in some way of reception versus the baptism or immersion (not sprinkling) with the Holy Spirit.

Have a God night.

I would be open to that interpretation of this text if there were any other text to support it. I just don't see that. But I'm just a fallen son of Adam, so I could be wrong :)

You have a God night, too :)

[arrow1]

Chris D said:

The most that can be inferred from this is that God wanted Peter and John to witness the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a testimony that the scope of the indwelling had increased.

That statement is a big leap and a big assumption.

In all of your previous statements you consistentyly say all one needs to do is believe & have faith in Jesus & in His shed blood and you will recieve the HS. Acts 2:38 clearly says believe & be baptized and you will receive the HS. It clearly states that the Samaritans believed in the "preached word" and in the name of Jesus Christ and that they were baptized. It goes on to state (vs 14) that they had accepted the word of God.

So, based on everything you have said prior, and what the scriptures say, they were saved, thus they had the indwelling of the HS.

To infer that God just chose to wait arbitrarily and have them recieve the HS later to be a witness makes little sense.

[Chris D]

Chris D said:

The most that can be inferred from this is that God wanted Peter and John to witness the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a testimony that the scope of the indwelling had increased.

That statement is a big leap and a big assumption.

In all of your previous statements you consistentyly say all one needs to do is believe & have faith in Jesus & in His shed blood and you will recieve the HS. Acts 2:38 clearly says believe & be baptized and you will receive the HS. It clearly states that the Samaritans believed in the "preached word" and in the name of Jesus Christ and that they were baptized. It goes on to state (vs 14) that they had accepted the word of God.

So, based on everything you have said prior, and what the scriptures say, they were saved, thus they had the indwelling of the HS.

To infer that God just chose to wait arbitrarily and have them recieve the HS later to be a witness makes little sense.

Since you repeat what you said at my blog, as if I haven't already answered this objection, I'll repeat what I said in response:

I did not contradict myself.

First, I've distinguished between genuine faith, and a mere professed one which is not and therefore does not produce fruit. One doesn't say that a tree is an apple tree as a result of bearing apples; one says a tree bears apples as a result of being an apple tree. Likewise, fruit comes from a genuine, saving faith, and it is possible to claim one believes but not truly believe. We can't know that the kind of faith which the Samaritans exercised was a genuine, saving faith.

Second, it also matters precisely what we believe. The Samaritans believe Philip's preaching, but we don't know precisely the full extent of that which Philip preached to them. We know he preached, and they believed, "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," but we don't know precisely what that entailed. We can't know that the Samaritans precisely believed that they are sinners doomed to hell until they place their saving trust in Jesus Christ as the propitiation for their sins, and that they would one die rise physically from their graves, and so forth.

However, we do know that the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which is the saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit that seals as children of God, means we're saved. So the fact that the Samaritans don't receive it until the Apostles pray before them and lay hands on them means it is at least possible that the Samaritans did not truly exercise saving faith until that happened.

Still, you're missing my point. Throughout Acts, God chose to progressively broaden the scope of baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans may, in fact, have been justified through the faith which led them to be baptized before receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, because until that point only Jewish believers were given that gift. The reason, then, that God does not give them the Holy Spirit until the Apostles arrive is so that they are witness to God's broadening the boundaries of the Christian community from just Jewish believers to Samaritan believers as well. Later, the gift is still further expanded to Gentile Godfearers, and later still further to all Gentile believers. Then, in 1 Corinthians 12, we see that all saved Christians have the gift.

The point is, the fact that the Samaritans do not receive the Holy Spirit until the Apostles arrive to lay hands on them does not prove they weren't saved before then (although they might not have been), it only shows that God waited to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit until the Apostles arrived so they would be witness to God's broadening of the Christian community.

[arrow1]

daniel 1212 said:

As for a text that states that baptism is a symbol, or that it represents something or that it demonstrates something or that it signifies something, that is provided by 1Pet. 3:21, in which baptism is referred to as "the like figure, (antitupon), denoting “a representative, counterpart”, versus its fulfillment,

No, clearly the flood water of Noah in the OT is the pre-figurement of baptism in the NT. Therefore baptism "is" the fulfillment.
Just like the slaughtered lamb & the blood on the doorpost in the OT prefigures Jesus, the lamb of God; His shed blood is the fulfillment in the NT.
It clearly states, "baptism now saves you". It doesn't say baptism represents or is a symbol of what saves you. It then simply states what baptism is not(taking a bath) and what baptism is(the appeal to God) Baptism is the "sinners prayer" in a manner of speaking.

Just from the text alone, where am I wrong?

[dbaeder]

I've read the main article and many (but not nearly all) of the responses. I am not a Oneness Pentecostal, but I find myself disagreeing far more with the author of the article than with the Oneness folks on this issue.

Herein lies the problem for those who reject the essential nature of Baptism: They view baptism as a work of man. Paul puts all things into two mutually exclusive categories: Faith and Works. The question is, "Into which of these two categories does baptism fall?" Most folks who deny that baptism is a requirement for salvation do so because they view baptism as a work. But, what if baptism is not a work? If baptism were not in the works categary, how could they conclude that that is not required for salvation. If we're saved by faith, and baptism is in the faith category, not in the works category, wouldn't baptism be a requirement for salvation?

And the truth of the matter is that revelation puts baptism in the faith category, not the works category.

Now, I probably have convinced precious few of you that baptism is faith in God and not the work of man, but don't you owe it to yourself to check it out?

[Chris D]

As for your request for an explicit reference where water baptism is 'specifically' referred to as a work, such a demand for an formal explicit statement is not warranted when it can be proven by principal, and if prayer is labor, (Col. 4:12) and the Bible indicates "works" are any volitional act, (Jn. 5:17; Acts 10:35; Rm. Rm. 2:10) with "him that willeth," (Acts 9:16) being the exclusion of works as the basis for salvation, then we can only classify baptism as a work. But which even a "sinner's prayer is, versus an act of grace which draws humans (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) and grants and enables repentance, (Acts 11:18) and gifts them faith. (Eph. 2:8,9) And what happens in true baptism or effectually confession of the Lord Jesus is truly not any work of man.

I would add that the word ἔργον (ergon) means "an act, deed, thing done." It is not a rigid reference to works of the Law; it is anything we do.

[Chris D]

Now, I probably have convinced precious few of you that baptism is faith in God and not the work of man, but don't you owe it to yourself to check it out?

I think it's evident by the dialogue that we have.

I would encourage you, however, to consider the danger you may be in if you think something you have done contributes to your salvation. It has been repeatedly said that baptism is a work of God, but this is disingenuous, for even if the regeneration that happens at baptism is God's doing, submitting in obedience to Christ in being baptized is the work of man.

[arrow1]

to dbaeder:

Very well put. I wish I was that articulate.

ChrisD said:
We can't know that the kind of faith which the Samaritans exercised was a genuine, saving faith.............and he said..............
The reason, then, that God does not give them the Holy Spirit until the Apostles arrive is so that they are witness to God's broadening the boundaries of the Christian community.

God's ways are above our ways and God chooses to have mercy upon whom He chooses.

Actually, you may very well be correct. That said, if repentance and baptism are the normative way of receiving the HS, then it logically follows that He could have very well "chosen" to give the HS to the house of Cornelius prior to their baptism and prior to their hearing the complete message(Acts 11:15) in order to convince the Jewish christians God was now willing to accept Gentile believers. Note also verse 14; "he will bring you a message through which your household will be saved". Peters' ordering that they be baptized was the last part of his message.
Peter asked the question, verse 47. "can anyone forbid that they receive water". There was a distinct possibility that the Jewish christians would deny them baptism simply because they were Gentiles. Also, unless we are willing to deny free will, Cornelius and his family could have refused baptism and asked Peter to leave his home.
So you see, God being sovereign, he could have very well went outside the normal pattern of receiving the HS at baptism, and sent it to Cornelius' houselhold to show he was saving them and settle the matter of opening up the gospel to Gentiles. Acts 11:17-18

So I may agree, in this instance, Cornelius may very well have been saved at the point of having the HS prior to his baptism because God "chose" to do it in that manner. The fact remains that he and his family were "commanded" to be baptized immediately, thus showing the close association of baptism to salvation.

Segway back to what dbaeder just posted:
His baptizing them(assuming one of the apostles did the baptizing) would also show baptism is something done to you, not something you do yourself.(you receive baptism) Therefore baptism is a work of God, not a work of man.

[daniel1212]

if there were any other text to support it

This hypothesis would only find support in the record of souls who are said to have "received" the Holy Spirit thru others after having believed and were baptized. I see the proposition that attributes deficiency to Phillips presentation of the gospel (which he would have recovered form later in the chapter), as being unwarranted, but compelled by theological conformity. While Acts is limited in its ability to establish doctrines, what is clear under the New Covenant is that believing and being regenerated go together, and one cannot be a Christan unless he/she is regenerated.

[daniel1212]

The text disagrees with you as regards baptism symbolizing something. While the flood did typify baptism, it really typifies cleansing and deliverance, and baptism is likewise clearly is stated to be a "like figure," which your question challenged.

As for baptism saving souls, let me first say that your idea that baptism does not qualify as a work and that only "works of the Law" are all that is excluded as a basis for salvation, and the idea that works themselves may be meritorious for salvation, have all been answered. In short, "not of works, (Eph. 2:9) "not by works of righteousness," (Titus 3:5) "not according to our works," (1Tim. 1:9) broadly means works of man may does not merit salvation, but God-given faith is what a soul is justifed by, and if James is disagreeing with that then he is contradicting both Genesis 5:6) and Paul.

But the kind of faith that saves is one that is of a confessional one, that will be expressed. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 10:32) "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;" (2 Corinthians 4:13) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:9,10)

Paul here might as well have said "by baptism" rather than "with the mouth," as that, as said before, is a confession of Christ in body language, and can be both a catalyst to decide for Christ as well as a an expression of that faith.

However, Gos sees what manner of faith is in the heart before it is expressed, and thus we cannot exclude death-bed conversions.

As for what "baptism doth save you, (1Pet. 3:21) the context of this chapter is that of faith-testimony, and baptism saves one the same way "childbearing" was said to save a women normatively in Paul's time, (1Tim. 2:15) that being by a kind of faith which is manifest in obedience. (Jn. 3:36)

The key error of Rome is that of teaching that souls may be accounted worthy to have merited eternal life by their work's done in God, which they are said to do through the grace dispensed from Rome's repository via the her sacraments, and which fosters confidence in a gospel of salvation by a grace thru merit, and in the power of the Roman institution, as well as perfunctory professions.

While the fact that the Reformers taught that a faith that is alone does not save is ignored by many today, the disposition of man is one that is prone to imagine that his works help save him, rather than coming to God with a broken heart and contrite spirit, having nothing by which he may escape his just eternal punishment and merit eternal life, and so in repentance and surrender cast all his faith in the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood to save him. This is what one must do to be saved, and if true, his life will be characterized by obeying the Scriptures through the Spirit, according to light and grace realized, (Jn. 10:27; Rm. 6:17,18; 8:14) and repentance when convicted of not doing so. (2Cor. 7:10,11) To God be the glory.

[arrow1]

I am glad we have been discussing the laying on of hands in recent posts as it proves my point of baptism NOT being a work.

If in Acts 8:17 you are willing to admit that Peter and John were performing a work by placing there hands and giving the HS, then I will admit that baptism is a work by man.

If, on the other hand it is not a work, then neither is baptism.

Logically Peter is performing an action(placing his hands), the samaritan believer is the recipient, and obviously God is doing the work(giving the HS)
Likewise, in baptism the apostle is the baptizer and the new convert is the baptizee.
The apostle performs an action, (says the words in the name of the father, son, & HS and places the person in water or pours water over them) the believer is simply recieving and God is doing the work(giving the HS)
As laying hands on someone is simply a person having something "done to them", likwise baptism, the baptizee is having something done to them.
So whether you are having hands laid on you or somone is baptizing you, either is a totally passive act as you are simply the recipient. God and the hand-layer are doing all the work.

So, if I am right, then Titus 3:5 declares that baptism is not a work,

"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"