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.

Two things disputes your accusation. One if Jesus did baptize with water that makes John the Baptist a false prophet or Jesus not the "Christ".

The other thing is, it is not good to read the scripture out of context. If you would have read on you would have seen He did not baptize.

John 4:1 When Jesus knew that the Pharisees heard He was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), 3 He left Judea and went again to Galilee.

In your religion the OT doesn’t count.

You got that wrong...

2Timothy 3:16-17 -- 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Mosaic Law and all its strappings and ceremony have passed, but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

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

Not exactly, and if water baptism was a requirement of salvation don't you think Jesus would have participated in it? Does your doctrine have anything to say about the living water spoken of in both the OT and NT, probably not. The water from the well can not save anyone.

John 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?" 13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Revelation 2:6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give to the thirsty from the spring of living water as a gift.

The Christ is the spring from where the living water flows.

IMHO But you obviously believe deferent and I would call your interpretation incorrect only give you mine.

First off, we don't know that Jesus didn't baptize the Apostles. They very well may have been.

Second, we don't know that the Apostles needed baptizing. The Great Commission was given to them, and it is where the Lord commanded baptism. Perhaps they were "grandfathered" in due to their 3 years of training.

Third, we know that the Apostles did baptize under the direction of the Lord, prior to and after the crucifixion. How is it that He would command this of those who were unworthy? After all, didn't He seek out baptism from John at the commencement of His public ministry?

Fourth, while we do know that The Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize people. We don't know that they themselves needed baptizing. After all, if this were an issue wouldn't Jesus have said something like, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Oh, and before you do all this, baptize yourselves first. Amen."

He didn't say that, so the implication is that, however it was accomplished - baptism or otherwise - the Apostles were added to the Church. Perhaps they were baptized earlier, possibly later, or possibly not at all.

Baptismal regeneration is definitely the minority position - and I have studied the issue for over 30 years of ministry.

Minority position?

A billion Catholics believe it, 300 million Orthodox believe it, and many Anglican Protestants believe it, as do Church of Christ Protestants and some others. I'm not sure, but I think some Lutherans believe it as well. Let's say 100 million Protestants believe it, over and against 200 million who don't.

That works out to something like 85-90% of all professing Christians. 85% is not a minority.

And we know from Jesus that "belief" is a work (John 6:29).

You should quote scripture correctly and completely if you're going to quote it.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

"THE WORK OF GOD..." not of man.

In Christ, Wiley

Second, we don’t know that the Apostles needed baptizing.

Some were followers of John the Baptist and would have been baptized by him.

Jhn 1:35 ¶ Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

Jhn 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Jhn 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Jhn 1:40 One of the two which heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

Do you then hold that man cannot believe of his own accord? That he has no free will to determine his response to the Gospel? That he is an automaton, incapable of free agency?

That is the ultimate reality of the “faith only” argument. But as you can see in the original posting, this tag is a misnomer. “Works of Faith” are inseparably welded to “Belief of Faith”, and Faith is comprised of the two, together.

Speculating that the Apostles who previously followed John the Baptist had been baptized by him is no greater a leap than speculating that they might also have been baptized by Jesus.

I share these speculations, but let’s make no mistake, speculations they are.

***Speculating that the Apostles who previously followed John the Baptist had been baptized by him is no greater a leap than speculating that they might also have been baptized by Jesus.***

Why would a follower of John the Baptist need to be rebaptized?
John required repentance, works to prove it, and required those being baptized to believe on Jesus, the very things your church requires.

I've used this a couple of times already this week with this same argument, but it works...so here it is again...

Romans 10:9 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.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Now, answer me this...Is belief and confession a work? Is that your claim?

Also, as an earlier poster said, if baptisim were nessessary for salvation, it would be mentioned EVERY TIME that belief is. It's not, so do we have to guess? In Christ, Wiley

**My decision was to be re-baptized for the remission of my sins immediately upon being fully convinced of the truth. **

Congratulations. You have made your first step toward Catholicism. (All sins are forgiven for an adult upon their re-baptism into the Catholic Church,) although the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of several other faiths, also.

I can "infer" that Jesus' baptism for remission of sins is superior to John's baptism of repentance.

Acts 19:3-7

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

Would it be mentioned every time? Not necessarily. Even "belief" is not mentioned every time. Again, if you take each verse in isolation you wind up with a whole slew of contradictory statements. That means that the Bible is erroneous, or that the verses need to be considered together.

John 3:16 -- 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.

Rom 10:9 -- 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.

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.

Mark 16:16 -- 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Heb 5:9 -- 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

Taken in isolation, we've a real big problem on our hands. Taken together, we see the full doctrine of salvation by faith unfold.

You may not view it that way, but I do. That is why all Catholics (although they may not know it) can say that they are born again — because they have been baptized “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

We don’t subscribe to your notion of always saved, however. We know that we are sinners and need to confess our sins regularly, thus seeking and receiving forgiveness from God through the priest.

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.