Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[bling]

For all of the discussion regarding John's use of the phrase "baptism eis repentance", Neither "because of" nor "for" are the best rendering. The more literal "into" fits best in regards to John's baptism and the baptism of Acts 2:38. In the case of John's baptism, it was a baptism into a life charachterized by repentance. The same is true of Acts 2:38, it is a baptism into the forgiveness of sins. This is consistent with the New Testament doctrine of baptism. Baptism is into Christ, wherein is the forgiveness of sins. We are clothed with Christ in baptism, wherein is forgiveness, eternal life and every spiritual blessing. Baptism is the cutting away of the sinful nature, through faith in the work of God. Is baptism a work? You better believe it is--it is a work of God. Man may act in baptism, but the only work is that which is done by God.

So where those that had been baptized with John's baptism re-baptized?

Does paul teach us a difference in the baptism into Christ and John's baptism Acts 19:1-7?

[Cheshire Cat]

For all of the discussion regarding John's use of the phrase "baptism eis repentance", Neither "because of" nor "for" are the best rendering. The more literal "into" fits best in regards to John's baptism and the baptism of Acts 2:38. In the case of John's baptism, it was a baptism into a life charachterized by repentance. The same is true of Acts 2:38, it is a baptism into the forgiveness of sins. This is consistent with the New Testament doctrine of baptism. Baptism is into Christ, wherein is the forgiveness of sins. We are clothed with Christ in baptism, wherein is forgiveness, eternal life and every spiritual blessing. Baptism is the cutting away of the sinful nature, through faith in the work of God. Is baptism a work? You better believe it is--it is a work of God. Man may act in baptism, but the only work is that which is done by God.

With a focused respect to the two passages you reference here (Acts 2.38; Rom. 6.1ff), it is to be granted that the conclusion you draw is not absurd per se. It runs into trouble, however, when one tries apply the notion upon the wider witness of the scriptures, which make little of water baptism as instrumental, or prerequisite, to salvation.

At most, the above passages need only be witness to a notion that water baptism incorporated the faith response. It need not be read as saying water baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. Again, given the range of interpretations that can be squeezed from these passages, one must consult scripture's wider witness before drawing conclusions.

[Cheshire Cat]

Well, again nowhere in holy scripture does it make the commanded baptism a requirement of salvation. Saying it does does not make it so. God does the saving (John 1:13) and not by the will of man, which obedience to water baptism [immersion] is of necessity done by the will of man, which rules it out as a means of salvation.

Judging by the stance you take in this thread, I would probably tend to agree with you overall regarding this topic. However, the matter with which the above quote is concerned is a little more complicated than you intimate, I think. Namely, we know from many passages, if not commonsense also, that hearing the message of the Gospel seems to serve, normally is not normatively, in some respects as prerequisite to the faith response that results in salvation for those who hear the Gospel. Of course, such a "step" is accomplished by human missionaries or mediums who take or teach the Gospel to others.

This naturally forces us to ask whether humans are indeed required in God's process of bringing unbelievers to the faith and to salvation. Given the way we've just construed it, I think the answer to this question must, in fact, be yes. I do not deny that the author of Hebrews understands Christ as the Christian's only mediator. The result is a conceptual tension, and to me the resolution to it is to say that early Christians (assuming we can speak of their beliefs uniformly) construed how God works in salvation differently than we just have. A consequent of this is to acknowledge that if early Christians adhered to an understanding of God's unique role in salvation that nevertheless provided a role for humans, then we cannot be content, as it were, to simply leave the matter of water baptism to the observation that "Baptism is performed by persons; but only God does the saving, and Jesus is our only mediator." For this allows the baptismal regenerationist to rather easily respond by saying, "If humans are needed to spread the Word for conversions in the first place, why can't they also be needed to perform water baptism?"

[dbaeder]

It runs into trouble, however, when one tries apply the notion upon the wider witness of the scriptures, which make little of water baptism as instrumental, or prerequisite, to salvation.

Is it the wider witness of the scriptures or a strongly held pre-conceived idea that leads to that conclusion. The "wider witness of scripture" includes Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27. What wider witness of scripture makes little of baptism as instrumental or prerequisite to salvation? Do they really make little of baptism or do they rather poit to other aspects of salvation?

If this were one isolated passage that might possibly be misconstrued, your point might have some weight, but in light of the numerous scriptures which all lead in this same direction, your point is an argument without substance. If you want to argue the "wider witness of scripture" point to those passages which witness your argument. The wider witness of scripture points to the fact that baptism is God's plan for including man in the salvation wrought by Christ.

[Cheshire Cat]

Is it the wider witness of the scriptures or a strongly held pre-conceived idea that leads to that conclusion. The "wider witness of scripture" includes Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27. What wider witness of scripture makes little of baptism as instrumental or prerequisite to salvation? Do they really make little of baptism or do they rather poit to other aspects of salvation?

If this were one isolated passage that might possibly be misconstrued, your point might have some weight, but in light of the numerous scriptures which all lead in this same direction, your point is an argument without substance. If you want to argue the "wider witness of scripture" point to those passages which witness your argument. The wider witness of scripture points to the fact that baptism is God's plan for including man in the salvation wrought by Christ.

I will not deny, since it is a position I am inclined to accept, that baptism perhaps normally accompanied faith in the NT and consequently, at times, was used as a concertina word referring to conversion (as J.D.G. Dunn has pointed out). But I am rather resistant to the idea that such was, and is, normative such that baptism should be seen as prerequisite to salvation.

That said, by "wider witness" I'm referring to John 1.12–13; 3.15, 16, 18, 36; 5.24; 6.35, 40, 47; 7.38, 39; 11.25, 26; 20.31; Acts 2.21; 10.43; 11.17; 13.38, 39; 15.11; 16.31; 20.21; Romans 1.16; 3.22, 26, 28; 30; 5.1; 10.9, 11, 13; 1 Corinthians 15. 2; Galatians 2.16; 3.2–9, 14, 24, 26; Ephesians 2.8, 9; 2 Thessalonians 2.10, 12; 1 Timothy 4.10; 2 Timothy 3.15; Titus 3.8; 1 John 5.1, 11–13.

The items in this list exceed those in your's by a margin of about seven to one (I do not, by the way, grant much viability to Mark 16.16 as it is not original to the gospel along with the rest of 16.9–20 however one wants to interpret it); and virtually all of them convey the notion that faith is a sufficient condition for salvation.

Perhaps you would care to explain the logic that allows so fewer verses that ostensibly support a doctrine to overturn so many more verses that ostensibly negate it? Even were such logic accepted, it would immediately destroy itself: A position that is, say, ostensibly supported by two verses that overturns a set of ten verses that ostensibly negate it can, by such logic, in turn be negated under the justification that the set of ten contains one verse; thus if two can overturn ten, one can overturn two.

Good luck with that.

[daniel1212]

All it takes is one regeneration b4 baptism to show it cannot be absolutely required, which we have in Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9. But we are justifed by a kind of faith that will effect obedience.

[dbaeder]

The items in this list exceed those in your's by a margin of about seven to one (I do not, by the way, grant much viability to Mark 16.16 as it is not original to the gospel along with the rest of 16.9–20 however one wants to interpret it); and virtually all of them convey the notion that faith is a sufficient condition for salvation.

The number of items in a list does nothing to bolster the strength of an argument unless the references have something significant to offer. For example, You cited Romans 1:16 as wider evidence supporting the position that baqptism is not prerequisite to salvation. Of course, the text cited does not support your argument, as it says nothing for or against baptism. In fact, I could have just as easily added it to my list; and in fact I will. If you would like to go through each reference in your list and explain how each verse supports your contention, I'd be interested in giving it a look.

As far as the longer ending of Mark being original, there is considerable evidence to accept it as original, although, I would agree that this is debatable.

By the way, if even one verse supports a doctrine that is sufficient to uphold it. Last time I checked, there were zero verses that stated that baptism was not prerequisite to salvation. If you can cite even one verse that does so, please enlighten me.

[dbaeder]

All it takes is one regeneration b4 baptism to show it cannot be absolutely required, which we have in Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9.

The case of Cornelius, et. al. is unique, in that they received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Two questions arise, "Was this normative?" and "Is this indicative of salvation prior to baptism?" Was this normative? No. Peter was surprized at its occurance. His explanation in Acts 15 to the Jerusalem council is further evidence that this was not nomative. As to the second question, "Is this indicative of salvation prior to baptism?" Again, the answer is no. The Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius, et. al. was a sign necessary to convince Peter that the gospel was intended for Gentiles. Any less of a sign and Peter would not have offered baptism to Cornelius and his household. Notice in Acts 10:48 that Peter commanded that they be baptized. He did not suggest it, he commanded it. Remember, it was Peter who earlier proclaimed to the Jews, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of your sins."

[Cheshire Cat]

The number of items in a list does nothing to bolster the strength of an argument unless the references have something significant to offer. For example, You cited Romans 1:16 as wider evidence supporting the position that baqptism is not prerequisite to salvation. Of course, the text cited does not support your argument, as it says nothing for or against baptism. In fact, I could have just as easily added it to my list; and in fact I will. If you would like to go through each reference in your list and explain how each verse supports your contention, I'd be interested in giving it a look.

As far as the longer ending of Mark being original, there is considerable evidence to accept it as original, although, I would agree that this is debatable.

By the way, if even one verse supports a doctrine that is sufficient to uphold it. Last time I checked, there were zero verses that stated that baptism was not prerequisite to salvation. If you can cite even one verse that does so, please enlighten me.

Unfortunately for the view that baptism is necessarily a prerequisite for salvation, dbaeder, the items that I provided in the list are significant; they convey the notion, at least ostensibly, that faith is a sufficient condition for salvation. And as long as faith is indeed a sufficient condition for salvation, an interpretation that holds baptism to be a necessary prerequisite for salvation is dead in the water.

Your odd remark that seems to suppose that a verse which mentions the sufficiency of faith must be made in connection to water baptism is absurd. First of all, if the NT authors indeed understood faith to be sufficient for salvation, there would be no need to mention water baptism precisely because it isn't soteriologically important or relevant. Similarly unreasonable is your expectation that a verse has to say in so many words that "water baptism [is] not a prerequisite for salvation". Is an instruction manual supposed to give you all the steps that are not required to perform a task? Does a cookbook provide ingredients that are not required to make a dish?

Once again, the logic you employ is actually self-refuting. If it were legitimate to suppose that the sufficiency or necessity of something had to be mentioned in the context of something that wasn't necessary, why is this not also true of the proposition that water baptism is necessary for salvation? Do the baptism passages referenced previously mention how, say, communion is not a necessary step of receiving salvation? Do any of the baptism passages state how anything that isn't necessary is, in fact, not necessary? What then is your justification for expecting others to provide what you yourself cannot?

[arrow1]

Chesire Cat - listed numerous verses that state the notion that faith alone is a sufficient condition
for salvation.


Well, that is simply proof-texting for one, and not a logical argument for two.

Many of the verses you mention say nothing of repentance. Are we then to conclude it is
also not a neccessary condition of salvation?

You also take many of those verses out of context. For example: Acts 16:31 You need to read on to
verse 32, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him". That was the COMPLETE answer to the Jailers question.
Upon hearing the complete gospel message, it says he was (immeditately) baptized. If he was just told to be
baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, it now makes sense why he would be immediately baptized. Notice
the acknowledgement of him being filled with joy and that he believed in God comes after the baptism.

[arrow1]

Daniel 1212 posted: All it takes is one regeneration b4 baptism to show it cannot be absolutely required, which we have in Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9.

Would not the same hold true for Acts 8:12-16? One example of people being converted to Christianity(they believed the goods news of the Kingdom of God & the name of Jesus, they were baptized, they accepted the word of God) but not recieving the Holy Spirit.
Well, that now proves you can be saved apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Does that prove the Holy Spirit is not required
for salvation? Is not this argument just as silly..........

[Cheshire Cat]

Chesire Cat - listed numerous verses that state the notion that faith alone is a sufficient condition
for salvation.


Well, that is simply proof-texting for one, and not a logical argument for two.

Many of the verses you mention say nothing of repentance. Are we then to conclude it is
also not a neccessary condition of salvation?

You also take many of those verses out of context. For example: Acts 16:31 You need to read on to
verse 32, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him". That was the COMPLETE answer to the Jailers question.
Upon hearing the complete gospel message, it says he was (immeditately) baptized. If he was just told to be
baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, it now makes sense why he would be immediately baptized. Notice
the acknowledgement of him being filled with joy and that he believed in God comes after the baptism.

Arrow1,

I’m afraid the only intelligible point I was able to gleam from your response is the grievance that none of the verses I provided mention repentance. But, of course, since faith is a commitment to God, it is inconceivable repentance would not be an aspect thereof. It isn’t even wrong—for it is incoherent—to suppose faith is congruent with someone maintaining they have not sinned and do not need to commit themselves in God. One may as well hold that it is conceivable for a man to genuinely commit to a spouse while maintaining that he is a bachelor and is living the life of one too. Such disjunctions are impossible without rendering words like “commitment” meaningless. Since, however, faith is commitment, and since commitment is nothing if it isn’t a change in attitude, focus and way of life with respect to that which receives the commitment, then insofar as repentance is precisely such change, it is also an inseparable characteristic of faith.

This is in contrast to something like confession or water baptism, which are adjunct to faith (as baptismal regenerationists acknowledge anyway) and do not result in incoherence when they are imagined as separate or apart from faith.

[dbaeder]

And as long as faith is indeed a sufficient condition for salvation, an interpretation that holds baptism to be a necessary prerequisite for salvation is dead in the water.

But, of course, since faith is a commitment to God, it is inconceivable repentance would not be an aspect thereof.

Not dead in the water, made alive in the water! Faith is indeed a sufficient condition. But baptism is faith in action. Colossians 2:12 says that baptism is faith in the powerful working of God. Like so many, you equate baptism with works rather than with faith. It is likewise inconceivable that baptism would not be an aspect thereof.

[MichaelB]

Not dead in the water, made alive in the water! Faith is indeed a sufficient condition. But baptism is faith in action. Colossians 2:12 says that baptism is faith in the powerful working of God. Like so many, you equate baptism with works rather than with faith. It is likewise inconceivable that baptism would not be an aspect thereof.

Hello,

I am the author of the initial article. I noticed what you said here, and I would like to respond. Firstly, the text of Scripture itself creates a distinction between faith and all else. This is evident by a great many texts, but for brevity I'll just provide you with two.

Hebrews 11:1 defines what faith actually is: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Paul tells us that justification is only by faith. Notice how he exhausts the langauge to demonstrate that faith, and only faith provides salvation to sinners:

Romans 4:1-8 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 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.”

Therefore, you have no Scriptural basis to suggest that is in anyway faith. These kinds of attempts amount to little more than the doctrinal slight of hand made by all those who distort the gospel of Christ.


Colossians 2:12 does not say that baptism is faith. That assertion amounts to a lie. Please be careful not to make such statements when they do not correlate to the truth. What that text does tells us, is that baptism identifies the union that the believer has with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.


Take Care, and please visit onenesspentecostal.net

[arrow1]

Yes, Hebrews 11:1 is true, it is describing an aspect of Faith. So also does Galations 5:6 and 1 Corinthians 13:2. But, they do not speak of "faith alone".
Gal. says: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, the only thing that counts is.......faith alone?......
NO......faith working in love......in other words an active, obedient, ongoing faith just like the one Abraham had from Gen.12 all through Gen. 22
1 Cor. says: if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing. In other words, faith minus love(faith alone) = nothing

You also misinterpreted dbaeder. He didn't mean baptism = faith, he meant as one goes under the water, by faith one understands this is when God performs His work of salvation. God is doing all the work here, He provides the pastor, He provides the water, He provides the words, He provides the shed blood of His son, He provides the ressurection. In a manner of speaking, water baptism
is the equivalent of the sinners prayer. We, by faith, make an appeal to God for a good conscience in being baptized(1 Peter 3:21), but God does the saving, He does the washing, He does the regenerating. If one comes to baptism without faith then he or she is just getting wet.

You also assert that baptism "identifies" our union with Christ in Col 2. But clearly it does not say that. It clearly states; In Him you were circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism. In other words, in baptism Christ spiritually circumcised you. Baptism didn't show you were saved, it is when you were saved. The phrases public identification, outward sign of inward grace, symbol of, first step of obedience, etc.etc. do not exist anywhere in the Bible.

You also misinterpret Romans 4.

Paul is comparing the "relationship" between an employee and his employer (one of obligation)
and then contrasting that to the "relationship" between God and man (one of favor or grace)

He does not bring up the situation of a worker who still receives a wage from his employer even though he does no work.

He is not pitting works against faith, or obedience against faith. He is simply contrasting being credited something under a "system of obligation" with being credited something under a "system of favor". The Jews thought God owed them something because they were circumcised.

In Jewish thought, Abraham was viewed as the paradigm of obedience, but this obedience was directly connected to his having passed on covenant privileges to Israel. Paul breaks from this Jewish understanding in Romans 4 by showing that Abraham has passed on covenant privileges to all who believe, and not just to those who are members of ethnic Israel. This break is therefore not over belief and obedience as competing soteriological paradigms, but over Jewish ethnicity and faith as competing boundary markers of God's people.

Abraham had a relationship with God, starting from Gen. 12, he faithfully obeyed God over the course of many years. Abraham is not an example of how to be saved, he is an example of the kind of relationship we are to have with God.