Layhands.com
fish  
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources

  

 

Is Baptism Required for Salvation?

Part One    Part Two    Part Three    Part Four    Part Five


Introduction

In Part One of this series we saw that there are literally dozens of passages in the New Testament which tell us that we can receive salvation, eternal life, forgiveness of sins, justification, and righteousness through faith in Jesus. Baptism is not mentioned in any of those passages. The amount of Scriptural testimony which shows that we are saved through faith far outweighs the few passages which appear to link baptism with salvation (and those few passages do not contradict the doctrine of salvation by faith). We also saw examples of numerous people who received salvation before they were baptized in water, which demonstrates that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Baptism is commanded in Scripture, which means that it is an important act of obedience, but it is not a requirement for receiving salvation.

In this article we will look at Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38, two of the main passages which some people use as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation.


Mark 16:16

Notice that Mark 16:16 seems to list baptism as a requirement for salvation:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
Some people use this passage as proof that baptism is necessary for receiving salvation and eternal life. However, it turns out that their argument creates a contradiction in Scripture. To see why, first notice that if we are saved then we have eternal life, and if we have eternal life then we are saved. For example, John 3:36 says that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life, but those who reject Jesus are still under God's wrath:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)
Therefore, if we have eternal life then we are no longer under God's wrath (which implies that our sins are forgiven). To make this same point a different way, consider that Jesus said that those who do not believe in Him will die in their sins (which implies that God's wrath will remain on them):
"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)
The point here is that if we have eternal life then we are saved, and if we are saved then we have eternal life. With that in mind, let's compare a statement that Jesus made in Mark 16:16 with a statement that He made in John 3:36:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36a)
Now, here's the problem. If Mark 16:16a (above) says that baptism is a requirement for receiving salvation and eternal life, as some people believe, then John 3:36a (above) cannot be true. Take a close look at those two verses and think about what they are saying (remember, only those who are saved will have eternal life in Christ, as we saw above). To help us see the contradiction, here's an example which might make it clearer. A website for the Mensa organization Offsite Link makes the following statement:
"The only requirement for joining is that an individual's IQ falls within the top two per cent of the population."
In order to examine this rule for membership in Mensa, it is helpful to write it as an "if...then" statement:
IF a person's IQ falls within the top two per cent of the population
THEN the person is allowed to join Mensa
We can see from this rule that there is one (and only one) requirement for membership in Mensa. Now, if the Mensa organization decides to add a new requirement for membership (such as a rule that new applicants must have a referral from an existing member) then the above statement will no longer be true. Here is what the new membership requirements would look like:
"The only requirements for joining are that an individual's IQ falls within the top two per cent of the population and that the individual has a referral from an existing member of Mensa."
The new "if...then" statement of the requirements for membership would be:
IF a person's IQ falls within the top two per cent of the population
AND the person has a referral from an existing member
THEN the person is allowed to join Mensa
Notice that this new rule and the original rule cannot both be true at the same time. In the same way, if we say that baptism is necessary for salvation then notice that Mark 16:16a (above) and John 3:36a (above) cannot both be true. To understand why, let's look at the "if...then" thoughts in those two verses:
IF a person believes
THEN the person has eternal life (from John 3:36a)

IF a person believes
AND the person is baptized
THEN the person will be saved (from Mark 16:16a)
Carefully compare these two statements with the two rules in the Mensa illustration above. Notice that if Mark 16:16a says that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation and eternal life (as some people believe), then John 3:36a cannot be true, just as the two rules for membership in Mensa cannot both be true at the same time. So if we use Mark 16:16a to say that baptism is necessary for salvation then we are creating a contradiction in Scripture. In the same way, if we argue that baptism is a requirement for salvation then we are contradicting the dozens of Scripture passages that we examined in Part One which say that we can receive salvation, forgiveness of sins, eternal life, justification, and righteousness through faith alone. Baptism is not mentioned in any of those dozens of New Testament passages. Furthermore, we would be contradicting the Scripture passages that we saw in Part One which describe numerous people receiving salvation before they were baptized.


Here is another issue. If we use Mark 16:16a (above) to claim that baptism is necessary for salvation then we are making a common error which is sometimes referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy. This fallacy can be stated as follows:
"If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are true."
To illustrate the Negative Inference Fallacy, consider the following statement:
"Whoever breathes and is baptized is alive"
This is a true statement, but watch what happens when we try to negate it the same way that some people do with Mark 16:16a:
"Whoever breathes and is not baptized is not alive"
It is easy to see that this is a false statement. Remember, the Negative Inference Fallacy says that if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are true. In the above example one of the elements is baptism, which is certainly not a requirement for being alive, so now let's look at an example in which both of the elements are requirements:
"Whoever breathes and has a pulse is alive"
This is a true statement, but notice what happens when we try to negate it the same way that some people do with Mark 16:16a:
"Whoever breathes and does not have a pulse is not alive"
This statement is false because people don't breathe if they are not alive. Again, when we take a true statement and negate it this way, it does not prove anything (as the above examples show). When we attempt to prove a point by negating a statement, as people do when they say that Mark 16:16a means that whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved, then we are committing a logical error which is sometimes referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy.

Now let's compare the above examples with Mark 16:16a:
  1. "Whoever breathes and has a pulse is alive"
  2. "Whoever breathes and is baptized is alive"
  3. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)
The above statements are all true, but watch closely what happens when we negate them as in our earlier examples:
  1. "Whoever breathes and does not have a pulse is not alive"
  2. "Whoever breathes and is not baptized is not alive"
  3. "Whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved" (from Mark 16:16a)
If you carefully compare the above statements then you can easily see why the negation of Mark 16:16a does not prove anything. For example, we can't use statement #2 to prove anything about breathers who are not baptized, and in the same way we can't use statement #3 to prove anything about believers who are not baptized. The point here is that the Negative Inference Fallacy is a known logical fallacy. It sounds logical to negate Mark 16:16a in this way, but such an argument does not prove anything because it is based on a fallacy of logic.

There are numerous examples which we could use to demonstrate the Negative Inference Fallacy. In fact, I asked the Lord for another Scriptural example, and it popped into my head to do a search on "whoever" in the NIV New Testament. The very first occurrence of this word in the New Testament is in this statement in Matthew 5:19:
"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19b)
If we try to negate this statement (as above), then we would get:
"whoever practices and does not teach these commands will not be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
This "seems" to mean that we must teach those commands in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven. But notice something else that Jesus said:
"Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:4)
According to this verse, if we humble ourselves like little children then we will be great in the kingdom of heaven. Notice that Jesus didn't say anything here about teaching, so according to this verse we can be called great in the kingdom of heaven by humbling ourselves like little children, even if we don't teach anything. But when people use the negation of Mark 16:16a to claim that we are not saved unless we are baptized, by this same reasoning we would have to use the negation of Matthew 5:19b (above) to claim that we are not great in the kingdom of heaven unless we teach Jesus' commands, which contradicts Matthew 18:4 (above). So once again that form of reasoning creates a contradiction in Scripture.

Now, certainly we can find examples in which that type of negation creates a true statement, such as the case in which we reverse the elements of Mark 16:16a:
1. "Whoever is baptized and believes will be saved"
Here's what happens if we negate this statement as in the examples above:
2. "Whoever is baptized and does not believe will not be saved"
Is #2 a true statement? Yes, it is a true statement, but the fact that we negated certain parts of statement #1 does not prove anything (because of the Negative Inference Fallacy). Instead, we know that statement #2 is true because the New Testament specifically tells us what will happen to those who don't believe:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
Based on Mark 16:16b (highlighted above), we can say with absolute certainty that belief is a requirement for receiving salvation. This is the only reason why statement #2 is true.

Notice that when Jesus said that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (the first part of Mark 16:16), He also told us what would happen if we don't believe (the second part of Mark 16:16). But where are we told what will happen if we are not baptized? Nowhere! In other words, Jesus said "whoever does not believe will be condemned," but nowhere does the Bible say anything along the lines of "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Again, it is erroneous to use Mark 16:16a to prove anything about believers who are not baptized. It's a logical fallacy, as you can see at certain websites which discuss logical fallacies. To learn more about fallacies that people sometimes make, here are some websites which might be helpful:

As we have seen, Mark 16:16a describes two elements (belief and baptism) in relation to salvation, but this does not mean that both elements are requirements for salvation.

In fact, we can demonstrate this point even further by taking a different approach. Consider the following statements:

  1. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)

  2. "Whoever believes and is baptized and reads the Bible every day will be saved"

  3. "Whoever believes and is baptized and reads the Bible every day and goes to church on Sundays will be saved"

  4. "Whoever believes and is baptized and reads the Bible every day and goes to church on Sundays and has a pet cat will be saved"

  5. "Whoever believes and is baptized and reads the Bible every day and goes to church on Sundays and has a pet cat and lives in Texas will be saved"

Notice that all of the above statements are true, and we can add as many new elements as we want and still come up with true statements about who can receive salvation. But as we can see, these elements (such as owning a pet cat or living in Texas) don't tell us anything about what is required for salvation, these elements simply describe a type of person who is saved. In the same way, the elements of belief and baptism in Mark 16:16a don't tell us anything about what is required for salvation, these elements simply describe a type of person who is saved.

So then how do we determine what is necessary for being saved? To answer this question, notice that the last element in statement #5 above is:
"and lives in Texas"
Now, imagine that there is a passage in the New Testament which directly negates this element by saying:
"whoever does not live in Texas will be condemned"
If we could find such a passage then we would know with absolute certainty that living in Texas is necessary for being saved. Think about it for a moment. In the same way, if we can find any passages in the New Testament which are direct negations of belief and baptism then we will know with absolute certainty that belief and baptism are requirements for receiving salvation. It is easy to demonstrate that belief is a requirement for salvation because Jesus specifically gave us the negation of belief:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)
We can see that Jesus has specifically given us the negative condition of belief ("whoever does not believe will be condemned"), and therefore we can say with absolute certainty that belief is a requirement for salvation. However, nowhere does the New Testament ever give us the negative condition of baptism (such as, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned"), just as the New Testament never gives us the negative condition of owning a pet cat or living in Texas. Therefore, we cannot say that baptism or owning a pet cat or living in Texas are necessary for salvation.

If we claim that baptism is necessary for salvation based on Mark 16:16a then we are making the error which is known as the Negative Inference Fallacy.


Acts 2:38

Now that we understand about the Negative Inference Fallacy as it relates to Mark 16:16a, it should be easy to see how the same principle applies to Acts 2:38. Here are those two verses:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
Both of these verses are favorites among those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but the Negative Inference Fallacy demonstrates the error that they are making. Obviously both of these verses are true (because they are in the Bible), but we have seen that it is erroneous to simply negate certain parts of these verses and assume that baptism is required for salvation. Again, here are some true statements:
  1. "Whoever breathes and has a pulse is alive"
  2. "Whoever breathes and is baptized is alive"
  3. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)
  4. "Whoever repents and is baptized will receive the forgiveness of sins" (from Acts 2:38)
As we have seen, it is wrong to assume that the following negations will create true statements (compare them closely):
  1. "Whoever breathes and does not have a pulse is not alive"
  2. "Whoever breathes and is not baptized is not alive"
  3. "Whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved" (from Mark 16:16a)
  4. "Whoever repents and is not baptized will not receive the forgiveness of sins" (from Acts 2:38)
Remember, if a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations of that statement are true. In Acts 2:38, notice that the apostle Peter did not say anything about unbaptized believers. Some people are making an erroneous assumption about unbaptized believers based on Acts 2:38, but they have fallen victim to the Negative Inference Fallacy.

In fact, notice some other statements that the apostle Peter made about the forgiveness of sins:
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord" (Acts 3:19)

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10:43)
In the above statements, the apostle Peter said that everyone who repents/believes will receive forgiveness of sins. He did not mention baptism in the above verses, and these verses harmonize perfectly with his statement in Acts 2:38 because if we assume that Acts 2:38 says that baptism is a requirement for receiving forgiveness then we are making the error which is sometimes referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy.


Conclusion

So far in this series of articles we have seen that:

  • There are literally dozens of passages in the New Testament which say that we can receive salvation, eternal life, righteousness, justification, forgiveness of sins, and so on, through faith in Christ. Baptism is not mentioned in any of those passages, good works are not mentioned, penance is not mentioned, church membership is not mentioned, and so on, because those things are not necessary for salvation.

  • When people say that baptism is a requirement for salvation, in effect they are saying that we must ignore the vast majority of passages on salvation, justification, eternal life, righteousness, and so on (because those passages say nothing about baptism), and they are saying that we must find and focus on the few passages which seem to link baptism with salvation. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the time when Jesus and the authors of the New Testament spoke about salvation, justification, eternal life, righteousness, and so on, they only mentioned faith and said nothing about baptism. As we are seeing in this series of articles, the few passages which seem to link baptism with salvation do not contradict the vast majority of passages which describe salvation by faith alone.

  • When people say that we must believe and be baptized in order to go to heaven, what they are really saying is that the following things are all required in order for a person to go to heaven:

    1. The person must believe in Jesus.

    2. There must be enough water available for doing a baptism.

    3. There must be a Christian available to do the baptism.

    4. There must be enough time to do the baptism before the new believer dies.

    5. The baptism must be done.

    According to that view, every one of the above items must be done in order for a person to go to heaven. This means that there will be numerous people who cannot receive salvation if their circumstances don't allow them to be baptized in water by a Christian before they die. In contrast, salvation by faith alone can be received by anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of their circumstances.

  • In this series of articles there are several examples in which numerous people received salvation before they were baptized in water. Therefore, either we have to say that those numerous people were all "special cases" of some kind, or else we have to say that baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation. When our doctrines force us to claim that certain Scripture passages are "special cases," then it's quite likely that there is something wrong with our doctrines! In fact, in Acts 15:7-9 the apostle Peter specifically said that God made no distinction between the Gentile converts and the original disciples, which indicates that the Gentiles had received salvation in exactly the same way that the original disciples did. Therefore, the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (who received salvation before they were baptized) were not a "special case" at all. Since the "special case" argument is false, the only remaining conclusion that we can make is that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

  • In this article we saw that if we use Mark 16:16a to argue that baptism is necessary for salvation then we are creating a contradiction in Scripture. In other words, if Mark 16:16a says that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation and eternal life (as some people believe), then John 3:36a cannot be true, just as the two rules for membership in Mensa cannot both be true at the same time.

  • We also saw that when we attempt to prove a point by negating a statement, as people do when they say that Mark 16:16a means that whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved, then we are committing a known logical error which is sometimes referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy. Here are some examples that we looked at:
    • "Whoever breathes and does not have a pulse is not alive"
    • "Whoever breathes and is not baptized is not alive"
    • "Whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved" (from Mark 16:16a)
    It sounds logical to negate Mark 16:16a in this way, but such an argument does not prove anything because it is based on a fallacy of logic.

  • We also saw that we can add as many new elements as we want and still come up with true statements about who can receive salvation, such as: "Whoever believes and is baptized and reads the Bible every day and goes to church on Sundays and has a pet cat and lives in Texas will be saved." But as we can see, these elements (such as owning a pet cat or living in Texas) don't tell us anything about what is required for salvation, these elements simply describe a type of person who is saved. In the same way, the elements of belief and baptism in Mark 16:16a don't tell us anything about what is required for salvation, these elements simply describe a type of person who is saved.

    Jesus has specifically given us the negative condition of belief ("whoever does not believe will be condemned"), and therefore we can say with absolute certainty that belief is a requirement for salvation. However, nowhere does the New Testament ever give us the negative condition of baptism (such as, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned"), just as the New Testament never gives us the negative condition of owning a pet cat or living in Texas. Therefore, we cannot say that baptism or owning a pet cat or living in Texas are necessary for salvation.

  • We also saw that the apostle Peter said that everyone who repents/believes will receive forgiveness of sins. He did not mention baptism in those verses, and those verses harmonize perfectly with his statement in Acts 2:38 because if we assume that Acts 2:38 says that baptism is a requirement for receiving forgiveness then we are making the error which is sometimes referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy.


Notice that the New Testament specifically says that unbelievers are condemned (see for example Revelation 21:8), but it never says that the unbaptized are condemned. The New Testament sometimes refers to Christians as "the believers" (as in 1 Timothy 4:12), and it sometimes refers to the unsaved as "unbelievers" (as in Revelation 21:8), but the New Testament never refers to Christians as "the baptized," and it never refers to the unsaved as "the unbaptized."

Water baptism was commanded by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), and it was taught and practiced by the apostles and early Christians (possible examples are: Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12, 16, 36-39, 9:18, 10:47-48, 16:15, 33, 18:8, 19:5, 22:16, Hebrews 6:2, 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12). Therefore, water baptism is an important act of obedience, even though it is not a requirement for receiving salvation.


For more on the Negative Inference Fallacy (especially as it relates to Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38), as well as other common fallacies, here are some interesting websites:
I hope this has been helpful, and may the Lord abundantly bless you as you study His Word!


Part One    Part Two    Part Three    Part Four    Part Five
 
 
 
  Modification History  
 
 

  • 12/26/2005 - Re-wrote most of the article in order to simplify the explanations and illustrations, and enhanced the Conclusion section.

  • 07/31/2003 - Modified some of the wording.

  • 03/20/2003 - Modified some of the wording.

  • 02/08/2003 - New article.