The Relationship of Baptism to Salvation

I have learned much since my first writing on this subject. I still believe that the content herein, while certainly not inspired, captures the truth closely. However, I reserve the right to change my view based upon further enlightenment.

I made an effort to lend a hand to those arguments that are used in disagreement. After all, the goal is to uncover the Truth, and not to invest oneself in a particular position or idea.

I would like to elaborate further on the “Thief on the Cross” argument often used to dispel the notion of baptism as requisite for salvation.

Taking the position that the thief on the cross demonstrates that baptism is unnecessary for salvation necessitates Jesus’ granting the good thief’s salvation. This is sometimes called “special dispensation”. Jesus – so the argument goes – being the God-man, granted a special, one-time dispensation to the good thief as a result of his having placed his faith in Him.

Those who reject this view do so for the following reasons. First, the Bible is clear that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). The idea that He allowed an exception for any individual from His stated requirements violates His word, and therefore cannot be a valid argument.

Also, basic logic requires that if God exists He must be perfect… perfectly legal and perfectly just. Suspending the rules for any person in any instant is both illegal and unjust, thus God could not have done so.

The argument of special dispensation for the good thief can be argued to violate both scripture and logic, and therefore can be argued as invalid.

A better position begins with understanding that the thief was under the Old Covenant; Jesus had not yet died for our sins. Because of this, he was required to seek forgiveness through the established sacrificial system. The Old Covenant was still intact. This is evidenced biblically by the fact that at the moment of His death, the sky grew dark, the earth shook, graves opened, and the veil of the Holy of Holy was rent from top to bottom (Mat 27:51-52; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). All this signified the completion of Jesus’ work, and His fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

Given that it was the Passover season - the annual time when sacrifices are made for the atonement of one’s sins - the thief was required to seek atonement through the slaughter of an unblemished lamb.

Jesus was God’s own perfect sacrifice, chosen to make atonement for sin, once for all. Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled perfectly and forever the requirement of the Law.

By believing on Jesus, the thief was in full compliance with the Law. He placed his faith in God’s chosen Lamb at the time of the sacrifice. The thief’s action was in accordance with the Law, and perfectly legal according to the Old Covenant which still retained authority at the time of his death.

The basis of Christian belief starts and ends with God’s Word: The written revelation given by God in Scripture holds ultimate authority. Every doctrinal question must be answered on the basis of Scripture. Consideration of a topic must be independent of (a) the quantity of people holding a like view; (b) the weight given to any individual’s views due to that person’s reputation or stature; (c) the length of time a particular belief has been held.

All that matters is what Scripture teaches. Just as the Bereans in Acts 17:11, we are to be “fair-minded” and “search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so”. Our responsibility as disciples is to remain humble, thereby teachable, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to change our hearts and minds to conform to the truth of His revelation through the written Word of God.

What then, does the Bible teach concerning our salvation? Here are but a few Scriptures that speak to the matter.

We must believe on Jesus to have everlasting life. John 3:16. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

We must believe in Jesus’ resurrection and confess Him as Lord to be saved. Rom 10:9-10. 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We must repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. Acts 2:38. 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We must be believe in Jesus and be baptized to be saved. Mark 16:16. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

We must obey Jesus’ commandments for our salvation. Heb 5:9. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

The Bible clearly indicates that the experience of salvation has many components; none of which can be taken to be exclusive. That is, if one were to say that belief is sufficient (John 3:16), what about believing and confessing (Romans 10:9-10)? The interpretation of Scripture in isolation cannot avoid direct conflicts. Clearly then, these (and other) salvation-descriptive verses cannot be taken independently. Further investigation is required to identify all the elements which make up the life-changing event we call salvation.

The verses cited above do not stand alone in indicating that the salvation experience is comprised of five key elements: Belief, Repentance, Confession, Baptism, and Obedience. The focus in this document is the relationship of baptism to the salvation experience.

The case for baptism as a requirement for salvation rests not on a single verse of suspect interpretation. On the contrary, the concept is widespread throughout the New Testament. No single conversion under the New Covenant is communicated without the inclusion of baptism. One might argue that the thief on the cross is the exception (Luke 23:43). However, Jesus had not yet died for our sins when He saved this man. Hence the thief cannot be considered as under the New Covenant written in His blood.

One other example is often cited against baptism as a requirement for salvation. Acts 10:44-48 states that Cornelius and his household experienced the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Although a more compelling example than the thief on the cross, this account cannot be taken to conclude that the people were saved at the time the Holy Spirit fell upon them. There are other scriptural records of God’s Spirit using those outside His chosen people, or His will. For example, Balaam could not curse the children of Israel, but blessed them instead (Numbers 22-24); Saul prophesied even while trying to kill David (1Samuel 10:10-11, 18:10). The point is that God can work through the fallen or unsaved. In this encounter Peter recognizes the signs of the Holy Spirit as confirmation of the vision he had received - that God is also Savior of the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-35). It is of specific interest that his first reaction was to command that they be baptized.

Other Scriptures lend support to baptism as requisite for salvation. Acts 22:16, has Paul declaring that his baptism washed away his sins. Galatians 3:27, states that we are baptized into Christ. Romans 6:3-5, goes into length on being baptized into Christ’s death so that we can partake in newness of life. Colossians 2:11-15, is a direct allusion to baptism being our equivalent to Christ’s death and resurrection. 1 Peter 3:18-22, compares Noah’s salvation through water to ours through baptism.

One cannot get around the volume of scriptural support of water baptism as integral to salvation. The weight of material to be explained away or simply ignored is substantial.

The more fundamental argument is one of faith versus works. The current, longstanding belief is that salvation is through faith alone, and that any human work adds to the once-for-all, finished work of Christ on the cross. This belief holds that baptism is a work, and therefore cannot be requisite in salvation.

The problem with this idea lies in the fact that Jesus clearly states that belief, itself, is a work (John 6:29). Thus the “faith not works” position disqualifies even belief from salvation. Considering the idea, it is easily arguable that not just belief, but love/obedience, repentance, confession, and yes, baptism are all works, and thusly prohibited for salvation.

Clearly the “faith not works” concept is incomplete. If a person truly has free will, he must "do" something to be saved. Yet we know the finished work of Christ is sufficient (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 9:12, Jude 3). There must be something more to this than simply faith versus works.

The Bible distinguishes between works of the Law, works of the flesh, works of evil, works of(by) God, and works of Faith. After Jesus, no man can be justified by the Law (Hebrews 10:26). Similarly, works of the flesh (pride) will not save (Ephesians 2:8-9). Works of evil needs no explanation. Works of(performed by) God - the greatest being the atoning sacrifice of His Son on the cross - offer man opportunity, and man must respond (Hebrews 5:9). That leaves the concept of works of Faith.

James’ epistle includes a very direct correction regarding the relationship between faith and works. His writings demonstrate that even within the early Church there was confusion surrounding this relationship. James summarily rejects the faith-only argument (James 2:14-26). He concludes his argument in James 2:24, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only”. An honest reading of James cannot discount the place of works, but what kind of works?

Certainly not the works of the flesh; Paul is very clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 on this subject. Then works of faith described by James must be a different sort of work than what Paul described. James, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews use the example of the father of faith, Abraham. In Romans 4, Paul uses the faith of Abraham to show that he was justified according to his faith, not by works. But which works? The works of the Law! (Remember, Abraham lived before Moses and the Law.) Every comment by Paul on this subject was written to the Jews for the purpose of dispelling the notion that one must be under the Law (e.g. circumcision) before one can access the salvation through Christ. Paul is not discussing all works, but the specific class of “works of the Law”.

The writer of Hebrews describes a different sort of work in Hebrews 11. He uses the example of Abraham, and others. The point he makes in each example is one of faithful obedience to God. His point is that certain “works of faith” must demonstrate faith; that faith does not exist outside of the works that demonstrate it. So, the person who says he believes but does not obey does not truly believe. Hence the works of faith are one with faith, inseparable.

James 2:21 points out that Abraham was justified by a work of faith in offering Isaac on the altar. Had Abraham simply believed, and had not followed through in obedience, then his belief would have been in vain. Similarly, had Abraham concocted the idea on his own, and actually followed through with the killing, then it would have been a work of his flesh, unacceptable by God. Neither of these is the true story. The truth is that God commanded Abraham, and Abraham obeyed God. This is a work of faith accounted to him as righteousness.

In exactly the same way, baptism is a work of faith; faithful obedience to the Lord. The act of baptism alone means nothing. It is an act of faithful obedience to God, no different than that of Abraham’s. It does not add anything to the finished work of Christ; it simply allows us access to the grace that came as a result of His work (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27), through the washing away of our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:18-22).

The washing away of our sins occurs as a result of our faithful obedience to the commandment of God that we should be baptized. God could have established any work of faith for this purpose. He chose baptism. Our responsibility is to perform the works of faith He has prescribed for our salvation: Believe, Repent, Confess, be Baptized, and continue in Obedience.

Does this mean that if one has been baptized under the premise that it is “an outward sign of an inward change of heart”, he must be re-baptized for the remission of his sins? When God granted me the understanding I communicated above, I could not help but consider Acts 19:1-7. Here Paul and Apollos encounter a group of disciples who had been baptized by John, but not into Jesus. Paul immediately re-baptized them. Also, I considered the idea that, just maybe, the gospel which does not include baptism as a required work of faith might be a “different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). My decision was to be re-baptized for the remission of my sins immediately upon being fully convinced of the truth. Outside of my personal conviction and decision, I leave the matter between each person and God as to what action, if any, a person ought to take.

I think pj was suggesting that you were arguing against points he was not making in a manner which suggested you thought he was making them, especially about the temporal relationship of salvation and Baptism. And I didn’t hear anything loud.

thus God could not have done so

Your arms too short to box with God, brother.

What does "sovereign" mean to you?

Do you believe God can do what he wants to do, or does he have to check with you first?

My father once told me that the one talking the loudest in a discussion is probably wrong.

I'm sure your father was a very nice fellow.

Baptismal regeneration is definitely the minority position

So your argument is, "everyone's doin' it!"?

and I have studied the issue for over 30 years of ministry.

Correction: So your argument is, "everyone's doin't it, and so am I... for a long time!"?

I did read your entry, and find it unconvincing.

Maybe you did read my entry, but your reply posting was "canned". I'm sorry if it doesn't convince you. However, I would like to hear why. Also, I'd like you (or someone else) to square the logical question of "faith only". That is, does man possess free will?

Let me check... yes, there it is... right above the doctrine that explains why he never rode a bicycle, and just below the doctrine that explains why he was never an acrobat.

Don't know about you, I don't need any doctrine to explain why something isn't covered in Scripture. I've got my hands full working with what's included.

Now that is a real strong doctrine. Now tell me why John the Baptist did not say the Christ would not ride a bicycle? He did tell us the Christ would not baptize by water, why?

Your arms too short to box with God, brother.

Love this line!

Do you believe God can do what he wants to do

God cannot do "anything". There are certain limitations that are part of the definition of God, and there are certain restrictions He has placed upon Himself.

Examples of limitations that goes along with being God. He cannot make a rock so big He can't pick it up; the Supreme Being cannot make anything outside of His control. The Supreme Being cannot become more perfect, therefore He must possess all knowledge (cannot learn), be good (no evil), be just (punish sin), etc.

Examples of limitations that God has placed upon Himself. He will never destroy the earth by water again. He punishes sin with death. He allows no access to His grace except through Christ.

The argument that "God can do anything" is invalid. There are things He can't do, and things He won't do. This makes Him no less God.

The Apostles may or may not have been baptized (Jesus was.) However, we have no way of knowing. Also, might their special relationship with the Lord, as confirmed at Pentecost, have played a role? They certainly had special authority due to this? Also, weren't they the ones who received the Great Commission? It said that they should baptize others, not each other. Hmm.

I would *strongly* argue that the apostles were baptized along with the 3,000 on Pentecost. Anything else would be the same kind of special exception you (correctly, IMO) deny the thief.

Acts 22:16

NKJV: And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

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

NAB: Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.

KJV: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Hope that helps. Now, I've got to get up, walk over to my kitchen, open a cabinet, reach in, grab a bag of cookies (with my hand), remove both the bag (with cookies inside) and my hand (still holding the bag filled with cookies), close the cabinet, turn around 180 degrees, walk back to my chair (in my office), sit down (in the chair), and commence to consuming unnecessary calories.

***Exactly! What in your doctrine explains why Jesus never baptized by water?***

“Let me check... yes, there it is... right above the doctrine that explains why he never rode a bicycle, “

Jhn 4:1 ¶ When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Jhn 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Perhaps your John 3:22 reference is where they were baptized. We just don’t know.

BTW, I make the “special exceptions” argument, but never said I agree with it! The argument following it is, IMHO, more compelling. Either way, the thief is not a good example for the “faith only” crowd to use.

***He then told us that the Christ would “baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”. A prophecy fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.****

And also when Peter went to Cornelius, it came down Before they were baptized.

Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;

Wen have unsaved men received the Holy Spirit in this Christian age?

***My father once told me that the one talking the loudest in a discussion is probably wrong.***

In a preacher’s notes there was this margin note...”Weak point. Pound pulpit.”

***God cannot do “anything”. There are certain limitations that are part of the definition of God, and there are certain restrictions He has placed upon Himself. ***

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me,

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

in this Christian age

This qualifier attempts to knock out my references in the OT. However, because God did this (OT or not), He therefore can do this. Unless you can cite a passage where He restricted Himself from ever doing it again, it is reasonable to assume He can still do this. Therefore, the OT references are valid. They show that the Spirit of God can, in fact, work through those outside His fold. There is no reason to believe this has changed.

***This qualifier attempts to knock out my references in the OT. ***

In your religion the OT doesn’t count.

2Ch 7:6 And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy [endureth] for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood.

Psa 150:3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

Psa 150:4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

Psa 150:5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

Psa 150:6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.