|
|
|
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources
|
|
| Home > Evangelism > Is Baptism Required for Salvation: Part Four | Email this article |
|
Is Baptism Required for Salvation?
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 Part Two we looked at Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, two of the main passages which some people use as evidence that baptism is a requirement for salvation. We saw that these passages do not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation because when we make such a claim then we have fallen victim to the error known as the Negative Inference Fallacy. In Part Three we looked at Acts 22:16, and we saw that the apostle Paul received salvation and his commission as an apostle before he was baptized. We also saw that when people use Galatians 3:27 to argue that water baptism is necessary for salvation, their argument is based on faulty assumptions, and we saw that Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 are talking about spiritual cleansing, not water baptism. In this article we will look at John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21, two more passages that some people use as evidence that baptism is a requirement for salvation. John 3:5
In this verse, a Pharisee named Nicodemus had come to Jesus at night. Here's what Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."" (John 3:5)Some people argue that being "born of water" means that water baptism is a requirement for salvation. Other people argue that being "born of water" is a reference to our physical birth, because when a pregnant wife tells her husband, "My water has broken," this indicates that the process of birth has begun (see for example How Will I Know When My Water Breaks?  ).
Another possibility is that the "water" refers to the "living water" of the Holy Spirit (as in John 7:37-39). However, this would mean that John 3:5 (above) says, "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit," which is not likely to be what Jesus meant.
So the question is, what type of "water" was Jesus referring to in John 3:5, and does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? We can find the answers by examining John 3:5 in its full context: John 3:1: "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council."Let's look carefully at Jesus' remarks to Nicodemus. In verse 3 (above), Jesus said that we need to be "born again" (which can also be translated as "born from above," according to the NIV footnote). Jesus was referring to a second birth, which means that having a "first birth" is not enough for us to be able to enter heaven. A second birth is required, but what are the "first birth" and the "second birth" which Jesus was referring to? In verse 4 we can see that Nicodemus assumed that this "second birth" is a second physical birth. Nicodemus specifically described being in a mother's womb for a second time, and then Jesus immediately replied by saying that in order to enter the kingdom of God we need to be born "of water and the Spirit." This can easily describe two types of births which are important in a person's life, a physical birth (in which we are birthed out of the water in the womb) and a spiritual rebirth (at the time of our salvation). After Jesus said that we need to be born of water and the Spirit (verse 5, above), Jesus explained this by saying that "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (verse 6). Once again we see Jesus describing two different types of births, and this time He was very specific that He meant a physical birth as well as a spiritual rebirth. Jesus did not make any specific references to Christian water baptism in this conversation (in fact, there was no such thing as Christian water baptism at that point because Jesus had not yet died and the Church had not yet been born), so there is no evidence to suggest that Nicodemus would have interpreted Jesus' statements as being references to Christian water baptism. In addition, the baptisms which were done by Jesus' disciples and John the Baptist were never described as being a "birth experience," so we have no reason to claim that Nicodemus would have assumed that being "born of water" was a reference to water baptism. So Jesus said that "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (verse 6, above), and then He repeated the fact that we must be born a second time (verse 7). In other words, first Jesus described our physical birth ("Flesh gives birth to flesh"), and then He described our spiritual rebirth ("but the Spirit gives birth to spirit"), and then He repeated His statement that we must be born again (a second birth) in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Over and over, Jesus emphasized that there are two important births in a person's life, and Jesus specifically described our physical birth as well as our spiritual rebirth. All of the evidence points to our physical birth as the meaning of "born of water" in verse 5. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Jesus was talking about baptism. In fact, when Jesus spoke of those who had received the spiritual rebirth, He specifically referred to them as "everyone born of the Spirit" (verse 8). Jesus did not say that water is an element involved in receiving the spiritual rebirth. Continuing on, Jesus said in verse 12 that He had spoken to Nicodemus of "earthly things," but what earthly things did Jesus speak about? The only earthly things that Jesus mentioned in this conversation were the fact that "flesh gives birth to flesh," and the fact that there is some similarity between the wind and those who have been born of the Spirit. So once again Jesus was emphasizing our physical birth (an "earthly thing") and contrasting it with our spiritual rebirth (a "heavenly thing"). Continuing on, Jesus said that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life (verse 15), and that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life (verse 16), and that whoever believes in Him is not condemned (verse 18), and that whoever does not believe stands condemned already (verse 18). Over and over, Jesus told Nicodemus that our spiritual rebirth is based on believing in Him. Notice in these verses that Jesus said nothing about baptism in connection with receiving eternal life. So when we look at John 3:5 in its context, all of the evidence points to the fact that Jesus was referring to two types of births which are important in a person's life, a physical birth and a spiritual rebirth. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Jesus was referring to Christian water baptism in this conversation with Nicodemus. John the Baptist was baptizing people in water during that time period, but this can't be the "water" that Jesus spoke of because John's baptism was never claimed to be for salvation. In every New Testament passage which specifically refers to water baptism, not one of them describes baptism as being a "birth experience" in any way. When people were baptized in water, not one of them was said to have been "born of water." In fact, the apostle John specifically said that being "born again" (or "born of God") is by faith, and he said nothing at all about water or baptism: 1 John 5:1: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"Being "born again" (our spiritual rebirth) is by faith alone, and we have seen that the phrase, "born of water," in John 3:5 does not mean "born again through baptism." Now, when John the Baptist baptized people in water, the Greek preposition which is used in those passages is en, which means "in" (and which is sometimes translated as "with"). For example, here is how The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament describes three different Greek words, and notice the difference in meaning between the Greek word ek and the Greek word en: "eis implies motion into, and ek motion out of, while en, in means remaining in place." (Spiros Zodhiates, p.579, emphasis added)So the Greek word en means "in," and the Greek word ek means "out of." In various passages where John the Baptist baptized people "in" (or "with") water, it is always the Greek word en which is used, but never the Greek word ek: Matthew 3:11: "I baptize you with [en] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with [en] the Holy Spirit and with fire."John the Baptist baptized people "in" (or "with") water, and the Greek word en is used in those passages. However, when Jesus said that no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), the Greek word here is ek, which means "out of" (as we saw above). Jesus said that no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born out of water and the Spirit. Remember that people were baptized "in" water, not "out of" water, which is why the Greek word ek is not used in the above baptism passages. But notice that the Greek word ek ("out of") is used when describing people's physical births: Matthew 19:12 (KJV): "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [ek] their mother's womb ["born out of their mother's womb" in the Greek]"These are some examples which show that we are born "out of" the womb. In John 3:5, Jesus described being born "out of" water in exactly the same way in which He described being born "out of" the womb (Matthew 19:12, above). This is further evidence that the phrase "out of water" in John 3:5 does not refer to baptism. We are not baptized "out of water," but rather we are birthed "out of water" from the womb. But why would Jesus say that we must have a physical birth before we can receive salvation? It seems incredibly obvious that we can't receive salvation unless we have first been born physically, but remember that we are not the only sentient (conscious, intelligent) beings here. The devil and his demons do not meet the condition of having a physical birth, and Scripture is clear that salvation is not available to them (see for example Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10). Jesus did not die for demons, Jesus only died for humans (the good angels do not need salvation because they never rebelled against God). As Jesus said, no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is first born physically "out of water" and then born again "out of the Spirit" (John 3:5). As the evidence shows, John 3:5 does not prove that water baptism is a requirement for receiving salvation. 1 Peter 3:21
This is another passage which people sometimes use as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation. Here's what the apostle Peter said: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21)In order to see why baptism seems to be linked with salvation in several New Testament passages, let's first take a look at the Great Commission: "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."" (Matthew 28:18-20)In the Great Commission (above), Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and make new disciples, and Jesus said that these new disciples should be baptized and be taught to obey Jesus' commands. Notice that "baptizing them" and "teaching them" are things which are done to the new disciples. "Teaching them" comes after they have received salvation, and in the same way, "baptizing them" comes after they have received salvation. "Teaching them" is not a cause of their salvation, and in the same way, "baptizing them" is not a cause of their salvation. Since Jesus commanded new disciples to be baptized, let's take a look at some baptisms which were done after the cross: "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." (Acts 2:41)We can see from these examples that the early disciples were obeying Jesus' command by baptizing people almost immediately after they believed. It is understandable that salvation and baptism seem to be linked together in several Scripture passages because salvation and baptism usually went hand-in-hand in the first century. Here's another example of a first-century baptism which provides some more information: Acts 8:34 (KJV): "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"In this passage, Philip the Evangelist was sharing the Gospel with a eunuch, and then the eunuch asked to be baptized. How did the eunuch know that he should be baptized? Philip must have told him so. Then does this passage prove that baptism is a part of the Gospel message (as some people believe)? No, because if Philip mentioned Jesus' commission to the Church (Matthew 28:18-20) after sharing the Gospel, then the eunuch would have known that he should be baptized after believing in Jesus. The Bible doesn't tell us what Philip actually said to the eunuch, so we can't prove anything about how the eunuch knew that he should be baptized. Now, in some versions of the Bible (such as the KJV), notice that before the eunuch was baptized, Philip first made sure that the eunuch believed in Jesus, and the eunuch made a proper response (Acts 8:37, above). Here are some things that various Bible commentators have said about Acts 8:37 (above): "If it was not in the original copy of the Acts, it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that "faith" is necessary to a proper profession of religion." (Barnes, from http://www.e-sword.net/commentaries.htmlThese commentaries point out that Acts 8:37 appears in some ancient manuscript copies of the book of Acts, but it does not appear in other ancient copies of Acts. But as one of the above commentaries puts it, "Whether written by Luke or not, it shows that the custom of the early church was to require such a confession of faith [at the time of baptism]." So it is believed that a question and response was common at the time of baptism in the first century. Now that we have established some background information, let's look at 1 Peter 3:21 in its context: 1 Peter 3:17: "It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."We can see that Peter only briefly mentions baptism as he shifts from one thought to another in this passage. Baptism is not the central theme here, and Peter touches on baptism in just part of a sentence without going into great detail about it. After bringing up Noah and the fact that eight people were saved through water, Peter then writes, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21, above). What did Peter mean? How does the Flood "symbolize" baptism? The Greek word which is translated as "symbolize" in the NIV is antitupon, which means "a representative, counterpart: - (like) figure (whereunto)," according to Strong's Greek Dictionary. So baptism is a "counterpart" to the Flood in some way. One is a "type" or a "foreshadowing" of the other. Those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation tend to explain this by saying that the water of baptism saves us just as the water of the Flood "saved" Noah (by lifting up the ark). But when we think about this for a moment, it becomes clear that this makes no sense. Notice that Noah was not in any direct physical danger before the Flood (see Genesis 5:28-7:6). Also notice that Noah was not in any direct physical danger inside of the ark while it was on the ground and the earth was dry. In other words, Noah would not have been in any direct physical danger if there had not been a Flood. So Noah did not need the waters of the Flood to "save" him by lifting up the ark, because Noah was not in any direct danger. Now watch: The only reason why Noah needed to be saved from danger was because of the waters of the Flood. It makes no sense to claim that the waters of the Flood were instrumental in saving Noah from death, because those waters were the very thing that Noah needed protection from! In addition, 1 Peter 3:20 (above) says that Noah and his family were kept safe through the waters of the Flood, but in that verse Peter specifically says, "In it [they] were saved." In what were they saved? In the ark. It was the ark which saved them, not the waters of the Flood, and this is why various Bible commentaries say that the ark was a "type" or a "foreshadowing" of Christ (see for example John Gill's Exposition of the Bible ).
Therefore, if we say that baptism is necessary for salvation because we're comparing water baptism with the waters of the Flood (claiming that the flood waters were somehow necessary for Noah's physical salvation), this comparison makes no sense. Notice that Noah did not go into the waters of the Flood and he was not baptized in the Flood, because if Noah had gone into the waters then he would have drowned along with the rest of the world. Instead, Noah was protected from the waters of the Flood by being in the ark. So if we try to make a "one-to-one" comparison between the waters of the Flood and the waters of baptism, then consistency would require us to keep new believers out of the waters of baptism rather than getting them wet during their baptism. The point here is that a "water-to-water" comparison between the Flood and baptism simply doesn't work. That's not exactly the comparison which Peter was making, as we'll see in a moment. When we look at the Scriptural facts concerning the Flood and we compare them with the Scriptural facts concerning baptism, the proper parallels become clear. First let's consider some facts relating to the Flood. Recall that Noah was a righteous man, and the rest of the world (other than Noah's immediate family) was unGodly (Genesis 6:9-12). There was sin all around Noah because of the sinful people in his town and throughout the world. When the earth got wet in the waters of the Flood, all of the sinners died (Genesis 6:17). If Noah had gone into the waters of the Flood then he would have perished as well. However, Noah was safely enclosed within the ark before the Flood hit (Genesis 7:5-16), and the ark was his means of salvation from death. Only a few people (eight in all) entered the ark and were saved (1 Peter 3:20). Now, considering the above facts, what are some parallels between the Flood and Christian baptism? Here are some thoughts:
Now, after bringing up Noah and the Flood, Peter then wrote, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21). This has given some people the impression that water baptism is a requirement for salvation, but notice that Peter quickly added a clarification in order to dispel that view. Peter made it clear that he did not mean that getting our bodies wet is involved in our salvation ("not the removal of dirt from the body"), and then he specifically told us exactly what saves us: "the pledge [eperotema] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21). Concerning the Greek word eperotema (translated as "pledge" in 1 Peter 3:21 in the NIV), here's what several Bible commentaries have to say: "In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart)." (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New TestamentThese commentaries point out that the word "pledge" in 1 Peter 3:21 in the NIV really refers to an inquiry, or the question and answer process which was performed at the time of baptism. Peter was saying that it is not the ritual of getting someone wet which saves him, but rather it is the person's proper response (or response to an inquiry) which saves him, based on the resurrection of Christ. This is what caused the eunuch's salvation in Acts 8:34-38, not the eunuch's baptism. Based on Peter's explanation in 1 Peter 3:21, we can see that the eunuch had received salvation before he was baptized because he had believed in his heart that Christ had been raised from the dead, and he had made a confession of Christ. Compare Peter's description of salvation with the eunuch's experience: 1 Peter 3:21: "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"The eunuch believed in his heart that Christ had been raised from the dead, and he made a confession of the resurrected Christ before he was baptized. These are the essentials of salvation which Peter described. Now watch how this corresponds to the apostle Paul's description of how to receive salvation: "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)Scripture does not contradict itself, and we can see that the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul both described the same essentials of salvation, just as we would expect. The main difference is that Paul did not mention baptism at all, but Peter did. We saw a few moments ago that people in the first century were often baptized as soon as they received salvation by faith, so it is reasonable and understandable for Peter to describe salvation and baptism in virtually the same breath. New converts made a public confession of their faith at the time of their baptism, and both Peter and Paul said that those who make such a confession (in addition to believing in the risen Jesus) are saved. Again, Paul did not mention baptism as an element of receiving salvation, and Peter was very careful to point out that he was not saying that getting wet is an element of receiving salvation. So when we study 1 Peter 3:21 in context, the weight of evidence shows that this passage does not prove that water baptism is a requirement for receiving salvation. Conclusion
So far in this series of articles we have seen that:
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. I hope this has been helpful, and may the Lord abundantly bless you as you study His Word! |