| |
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
Part Four
we looked at John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21, and we saw that when we study these verses in context, they do not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
In this article we will look at some other aspects of baptism such as the purpose for baptism, infant baptism, baptism by immersion/sprinkling/pouring, and so on.
What Is the Purpose for Baptism?
Notice that Jesus commanded us to baptize disciples (Matthew 28:19), but He did not specifically explain
why
we must baptize them. There are many things in Scripture which we might not fully understand, yet we must be obedient whether we understand everything or not.
Here are some ways that Bible scholars have described water baptism:
"This word gives Paul's vivid picture of
baptism as a symbolic burial with Christ and resurrection also to newness of life in him
as Paul shows by the addition "wherein ye were also raised with him"
(en wi kai sunhgerqhte).
"In which baptism"
(baptismati,
he means). First aorist passive indicative of
sunegeirw,
late and rare verb (Plutarch for waking up together), in LXX, in N.T. only in Colossians 2:12; Colossians 3:1; Ephesians 2:6.
In the symbol of baptism the resurrection to new life in Christ is pictured
with an allusion to Christ's own resurrection and to our final resurrection.
Paul does not mean to say that the new life in Christ is caused or created by the act of baptism. That is grossly to misunderstand him.
The Gnostics and the Judaizers were sacramentalists,
but not so Paul the champion of spiritual Christianity. He has just given the spiritual interpretation to circumcision which itself followed Abraham's faith
(Romans 4:10-12). Cf. Galatians 3:27.
Baptism gives a picture of the change already wrought in the heart "through faith"
(dia thβ pistewβ)."
(Robertson's commentary ,
Colossians 2:12, emphasis added)
"The picture in baptism
points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin (verse Colossians 1), forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer).
There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality."
(Robertson's commentary ,
Romans 6:4, emphasis added)
"Baptism is regarded as the burial of the old carnal life, to which the act of immersion symbolically corresponds"
(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary ,
Colossians 2:12, emphasis added)
"it is a
representation
of the burial of Christ, and of our burial with him as our head and representative, and that "into death"; meaning either the death of Christ as before, that is, so as to partake of the benefits of his death; or the death of sin, of which baptism is also a token; for
believers, whilst under water, are as persons buried, and so dead;
which signifies not only their being dead with Christ, and their communion with him in his death, but also their being dead to sin by the grace of Christ, and therefore ought not to live in it ...
for the end of baptism is not only to represent the death and burial, but also the resurrection of Christ from the dead"
(Gill's commentary ,
Romans 6:4, emphasis added)
We can see throughout the Bible that God is fond of symbolism. As the above commentaries have described, baptism is a symbolic picture of our identification (through faith) in what Christ has done for us. It is a picture of being buried with Christ and raised to new life in Him, as the following passages describe:
"We were therefore
buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4)
"having been
buried with him in baptism
and
raised
with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)
Should Infants Be Baptized?
I grew up in a denomination which practices infant baptism, by sprinkling. When I became saved at around the age of 30, I had to decide whether or not to be re-baptized. My question was, can I safely assume that my infant baptism was a Christian baptism, or should I study the Bible and find out God's view on the matter? Personally, I felt that I should find out God's view rather than simply accepting what other people say.
After studying this issue in depth, my conclusion is that infant baptism is not supported in Scripture.
People sometimes justify infant baptism by saying that entire
households
were baptized in the New Testament, but the problem is that there are no infants mentioned in any of those passages. Therefore, this argument for baptizing infants is based on the
assumption
that there were infants in those households. Personally, I didn't want to base my whole doctrine of baptism on an assumption, so I studied those households very closely in Scripture. Here are all of the households which were baptized in the New Testament:
-
The first household to be baptized in the New Testament was the household of Cornelius the Gentile. An angel had told Cornelius that a man (the apostle Peter) would bring them a message through which Cornelius' household would be saved. When Cornelius and his household believed the message of the Gospel, they were saved and were baptized in the Holy Spirit, then they were baptized in water:
"He [the apostle Peter] will bring you [Cornelius] a message through which you and all your
household
will be
saved.'"
(Acts 11:14)
"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the
Gentiles
[Cornelius and his household] might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and
believe.""
(Acts 15:7)
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
all who heard the message.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them
speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being
baptized with water?
They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:44-48)
Notice that there is no mention of any infants being baptized in this household. Acts 15:7 (above) says that Cornelius and his household
believed
the message of the Gospel, and Acts 10:44-48 (above) says that Cornelius and his household
spoke in tongues
by the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water. Infants are incapable of doing any of these things. There is no Scriptural evidence that any infants were baptized in Cornelius' household.
-
The next household that was baptized in the New Testament is the family of a woman named Lydia:
"One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.
When she and the members of her household were baptized,
she invited us to her home." (Acts 16:14-15)
Again, notice that there is no mention of any infants being baptized, so this passage does not provide any Scriptural support for infant baptism.
-
The next household is the family of a jailer:
"The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied,
"Believe
in the Lord Jesus, and you will be
saved
--
you and your household."
Then they
spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately
he and all his family were baptized.
The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because
he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."
(Acts 16:29-34)
Here we see that the jailer and his whole family
believed
the message of the Gospel, which infants are incapable of doing. There is no Scriptural evidence that any infants were baptized in this household.
-
The only other household that was baptized in the New Testament is the household of Stephanas:
"I also
baptized the household of Stephanas" (1 Corinthians 1:16)
"You know that
the household of Stephanas
were the first
converts
in Achaia, and
they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints."
(1 Corinthians 16:15)
Again, there is not a single infant mentioned in these passages. Instead, we are told that the people in Stephanas' household were
converts,
meaning that they understood and believed the Gospel message and had received salvation, and we are told that they devoted themselves to the service of the saints. Infants are incapable of doing any of these things. There is no Scriptural evidence that any infants were baptized in the household of Stephanas.
These are the
only
passages in the entire New Testament in which households are described as receiving water baptism, and we can see that there are no infants mentioned anywhere in these passages (nor in any other passages on baptism). In fact, we are repeatedly told that the people who were baptized in these households were those who had
understood
and
believed
the message of Jesus Christ, something that infants cannot do. Those who believe in infant baptism will often argue that it should be safe to assume that "households" contain infants, but in reality this is not a safe assumption at all. For example, the vast majority of households in my neighborhood have no infants in them (and you can probably think of numerous households in which there are no infants or young children), so there is no guarantee that any "households" in the New Testament contained infants who were baptized. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single description of any infants being baptized in the entire New Testament.
Those who believe in baptizing infants sometimes point out that the New Testament describes the beginning stages of Christian evangelism, but it does not describe what these first Christians did when they began having children. The question then becomes whether or not we should
assume
that the original Christians baptized their infants as they began having children. Consider that the birth of the Church is believed to have taken place around 30 A.D. (see my article called
Who Wrote the New Testament?),
and that the very first New Testament book (the book of James) is believed to have been written at least 15 years after the birth of the Church (see my article called
Who Wrote the New Testament?).
This means that
all
of the books of the New Testament were written at least 15 years after the Church was born, and yet none of those books mentions the children of the original believers being baptized. The fact is that throughout the New Testament, there is always a conscious choice of faith which needs to come before baptism. Infants are not able to understand the message of the Gospel and respond in faith, and this is why I do not believe that infants were ever intended to be baptized. It would be different if we had one definite command for infants to be baptized, or one definite example of an infant being baptized, but there is no such thing anywhere in the New Testament.
Another argument which is sometimes used to justify infant baptism is that baptism in the New Testament is analogous to circumcision in the Old Testament. The idea is that circumcision was the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17:10-14), and water baptism is the corresponding sign of the New Covenant (according to this argument). One of the main passages which is used to support this view is Romans 4:11:
Romans 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."
The argument is that New Testament baptism is considered to be a "sign" or a "seal" of our faith, and Romans 4:11 (above) says that circumcision was a "sign" and a "seal" of Abraham's faith. Therefore (according to this argument), if circumcision was a sign of faith which was given to infants who did not yet have any faith, then baptism should be performed on infants who do not yet have any faith.
However, notice in the following passages that circumcising a boy on the eighth day of life was a
commandment
that God gave to Abraham, and then later God
commanded
circumcision for the Jews (the nation of Israel):
"Then God said to Abraham,
"As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come
every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised,
including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."" (Genesis 17:9-14)
"The LORD said to Moses,
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.
On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.'""
(Leviticus 12:1-3)
The above passages show that God
commanded
circumcision for the physical descendants of Abraham (which includes all Jews). However, there is not a single commandment in the entire New Testament for infants to be baptized, nor are there any examples of infants being baptized anywhere in the New Testament, nor does the New Testament say that infant baptism is the New Testament replacement for circumcision. It simply isn't there.
For example, the Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and we saw a moment ago that this included circumcision (Leviticus 12:1-3, above). The Gentiles (non-Jews) in the first century were not raised under the Law of Moses, so this caused conflicts when Gentiles began receiving salvation in the first century. Therefore, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians in order to help resolve these conflicts. Since the Gentiles did not know or follow the Law of Moses, this would have been a perfect time for the apostles to inform the Gentiles that circumcision had been replaced by infant baptism. Notice that the apostles said nothing of the kind:
Acts 15:1: "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.""
Acts 15:2: "This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question."
Acts 15:3: "The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad."
Acts 15:4: "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them."
Acts 15:5: "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.""
Acts 15:6: "The apostles and elders met to consider this question."
Acts 15:7: "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe."
Acts 15:8: "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us."
Acts 15:9: "He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith."
Acts 15:10: "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"
Acts 15:11: "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.""
Acts 15:12: "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them."
Acts 15:13: "When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me."
Acts 15:14: "Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself."
Acts 15:15: "The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:"
Acts 15:16: ""'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,"
Acts 15:17: "that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'"
Acts 15:18: "that have been known for ages."
Acts 15:19: ""It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."
Acts 15:20: "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Acts 15:21: "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.""
Acts 15:22: "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers."
Acts 15:23: "With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings."
Acts 15:24: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said."
Acts 15:25: "So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul--"
Acts 15:26: "men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Acts 15:27: "Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing."
Acts 15:28: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:"
Acts 15:29: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
Acts 15:30: "The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter."
Acts 15:31: "The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message."
This letter to the Gentiles would have been a perfect means for the apostles to inform the Gentiles that circumcision had been replaced by infant baptism. However, nowhere in this letter, and nowhere in the entire New Testament, are we ever told that infant baptism has replaced circumcision, or that infants should be baptized. It simply isn't there.
What it boils down to is that infant baptism is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. Instead, we are consistently told that baptism comes
after
believing:
"Those who accepted his message were baptized,
and about three thousand were added to their number that day." (Acts 2:41)
"But
when they believed
Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were baptized,
both men and women." (Acts 8:12)
"Simon himself
believed and was baptized." (Acts 8:13)
"One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God.
The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. When she and the members of her household were baptized,
she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us." (Acts 16:14-15)
"The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus,
and you will be saved--you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds;
then immediately he and all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:29-33)
"Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him
believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)
Throughout the New Testament, baptism always comes
after
believing. Since infants are too young to understand and believe, they are too young to be baptized.
How Should Baptism Be Done?
Another issue to consider is whether or not it is acceptable to baptize people by sprinkling or pouring water on their heads, or whether baptism needs to be done by immersion.
In order to answer this question, let's first take a look at the meanings of the main New Testament Greek words for baptism. The Greek words are
baptizo
("to baptize") and
baptisma
("baptism"). According to
The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament
(Spiros Zodhiates),
baptizo
means:
"Immerse, submerge for a religious purpose, to overwhelm, saturate, baptize" (p.309).
The same Greek dictionary says that
baptisma:
"indicates the result of the act of dipping" (p.312).
Other Greek dictionaries and Bible commentaries give similar definitions for these Greek words. Notice that these New Testament Greek words for baptism specifically refer to dipping and immersion, they do not refer to sprinkling or pouring.
But doesn't the New Testament contain references to "sprinkling"? Yes, sprinkling is in the New Testament, but it never refers to water baptism. For example, the Greek word
proschusis
is used only once in the New Testament, in Hebrews 11:28. It means "pouring" or "sprinkling"
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament,
Spiros Zodhiates, p.1239), and it refers to the sprinkling of blood at the time of the Passover. The Greek words
rhantizo
and
rhantismos
mean "To sprinkle" and "Sprinkling," respectively
(The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament,
Spiros Zodhiates, p.1260). Those Greek words are used in Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21, 12:24, and 1 Peter 1:2, and they always refer to the sprinkling of blood in these verses. In Hebrews 10:22, the word
rhantismos
is used in the phrase, "having our hearts
sprinkled
to cleanse us from a guilty conscience." Again, this does not refer to water baptism because it is our
hearts
which are sprinkled. These are the
only
New Testament references to "sprinkling," and we can see that "sprinkling" never refers to water baptism.
For a thorough study of the Greek words for "baptism," and how those Greek words were used in the first century (fully supporting baptism by immersion), see
A Historical View of Greek Words Underlying "Baptism, Baptize" .
Now let's look at a verse which gives us a piece of information about baptism:
"Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim,
because there was plenty of water,
and people were constantly coming to be baptized." (John 3:23)
The above verse says that John the Baptist had chosen a spot for doing baptisms because there was plenty of water there. People sometimes use this verse to support the argument that baptism must be done by immersion, based on the idea that full immersion requires a lot more water than baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Certainly this might be the reason why John chose that spot, but the above passage doesn't actually say anything about immersion. Therefore, that argument is based on an assumption which cannot be proven.
Now let's take a look at a couple more verses which describe some baptisms:
"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he
went up out of the water."
(Matthew 3:16)
"Then both Philip and the eunuch
went down into the water
and Philip baptized him. When they
came up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:38-39)
In the NIV (and in other versions of the Bible), the above verses describe Jesus and a eunuch going down into some water in order to be baptized. For this reason, many people use these verses to argue that baptism must be done by full immersion. However, other people point out that Jesus and the eunuch might have waded into the water up to their ankles or knees or waists, and the other person might have scooped up some water and sprinkled or poured the water on top of Jesus' and the eunuch's heads. So it's possible that they went down into the water (or went down "to" the water) without being baptized by full immersion.
It is certainly a valid point to say that being in water does not automatically imply immersion. However, this argument ignores the "dipping" aspect of the Greek words for baptism. In churches which practice baptism by immersion, the pastor and the believer usually go into a pool of water which is about waist-deep. The pastor usually says a few things, then he has the believer make a short confession of faith in Jesus (see Romans 10:9-13), then the pastor lowers the believer backwards until he is fully immersed, then the pastor raises the believer back up again. In this way, the believer has been "dipped" in the water, which is consistent with the meanings of the Greek words for baptism. Notice that if the pastor simply lifts up some water and pours or dribbles it onto the believers head, then there is no real "dipping" taking place. The only things being dipped in that scenario are the pastors hands, in which case it's the pastor's hands which have been "baptized" ("dipped"), not the believer.
Since the Greek words for baptism contain the idea of dipping, notice how the above verses look if we substitute "dipped" for "baptized":
"As soon as Jesus was
dipped,
he went up out of the water." (Matthew 3:16)
"Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip
dipped
him." (Acts 8:38)
Notice that in both cases, one person
dipped
the other person, based on the meanings of the Greek words for baptism. This implies that the person being dipped was fully immersed for a moment or two.
Now let's take a look at another verse which describes something about baptism:
"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." (1 Peter 3:21)
Notice that if a believer leans over some type of "baptismal basin," and a small amount of water is poured or sprinkled on his head, then it would be appropriate for the above verse to say, "not the removal of dirt from the
head."
On the other hand, if the believer is fully dipped in water then this is consistent with the phrase, "not the removal of dirt from the
body" in the above verse.
Here are a couple more verses:
"We were therefore
buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4)
"having been
buried with him in baptism
and
raised
with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12)
In the above passages, the apostle Paul described baptism in terms of being buried. Notice that total immersion in water is a much better picture of being buried than pouring or sprinkling are. When a pastor lowers a believer backwards under the water and then lifts him back up again (i.e. "dips" him in the water), this is a picture of the believer being buried under the water and then raised again, exactly as the above two passages describe.
What it boils down to is that there is not a single mention of baptism by sprinkling or pouring anywhere in the entire New Testament, and such a method is never even implied in any passages on baptism. There is no direct mention of immersion in the New Testament, but all of the baptism passages are fully consistent with (and most of them strongly imply) full immersion by the act of dipping the believer under the water.
Therefore, if you were baptized as an infant, or if you were baptized by sprinkling or pouring rather than by immersion, then perhaps you have never had a true Christian baptism. That's between you and God, but it's worth seeking His guidance about. Remember, Jesus specifically commanded Christians to be baptized (see Matthew 28:19, below), and therefore this is an important issue of obedience.
What Name Should Be Used?
Another area of debate concerns the Name in which we should be baptized. In the Great Commission, Jesus said:
"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"
(Matthew 28:19)
This is Jesus' command, so we are being obedient to the Lord if we baptize people in this way. However, the apostles and early Christians did not precisely obey Jesus' command:
"because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been
baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
(Acts 8:16)
"So he ordered that they be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days." (Acts 10:48)
"On hearing this, they were
baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
(Acts 19:5)
If we baptize people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" then we are being obedient to Jesus' direct command in the Great Commission. But we also have Scriptural examples which tell us that we don't need to be dogmatic on this point, because apparently it was acceptable for the early Christians to baptize people "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "into the name of the Lord Jesus."
Who Can Perform a Baptism?
One final point concerns the question of who is authorized to perform baptisms. Modern Christians probably tend to assume that only ordained ministers or pastors are allowed to baptize people, but there are no examples in the New Testament of any ordained ministers or pastors baptizing anyone. In the New Testament we see people being baptized by apostles, but we also see people being baptized by Philip the Evangelist (or perhaps by someone traveling with Philip):
"But when they believed
Philip
as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized,
both men and women." (Acts 8:12)
"As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water
and Philip baptized him."
(Acts 8:36-38)
Philip was not an apostle (Acts 6:2-5, 8:1, 4-5), he was an ordinary Christian just like you and me. Remember, the Great Commission was given to the Church, which includes you and me, so let's look at the specific commands in the Great Commission:
"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" (Matthew 28:19)
Jesus commanded all Christians to go and make new disciples. Since all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to "go," and since all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to "make disciples," then all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to be "baptizing them" as well. I don't think it is wrong to let most of the baptizing be done by ministers or pastors, but if none are available then we have the Scriptural precedent to do like Philip did when he baptized the eunuch in Acts 8:36-38 (above).
Conclusion
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 have seen 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:
-
The person must believe in Jesus.
-
There must be enough water available for doing a baptism.
-
There must be a Christian available to do the baptism.
-
There must be enough time to do the baptism before the new believer dies.
-
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.
-
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 3:36
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 given us both the positive condition of belief ("Whoever believes...") and the negative condition of belief ("whoever does not believe will be condemned"). 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.
-
In addition, we saw 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."
-
We saw that the entire context of Acts 22:16 shows that the apostle Paul received salvation and his commission as an apostle on the road to Damascus, which happened
before
he was baptized in water.
-
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.
-
In addition, we saw that Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 are talking about
spiritual
cleansing, not water baptism.
-
We also saw that the evidence shows that John 3:5 does not prove that water baptism is a requirement for receiving salvation.
-
In addition, we saw that 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. When we examined the Scriptural facts concerning the Flood and we compared them with the Scriptural facts concerning baptism, the proper parallels became clear. When the apostle Peter compared the Flood with Christian baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21, the implication is that we must receive salvation
before
we are baptized.
-
In this article we saw that God is very fond of symbolism (as the entire Bible demonstrates), and water baptism is a symbolic picture of being buried with Christ and raised to new life in Him.
-
We looked at every household which was baptized in the New Testament, and we saw that there are no infants mentioned in any of those households (nor in any other passage on baptism). We can all think of numerous households in which there are no infants, and there is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that infants should be baptized.
-
We also saw that the weight of evidence supports baptism by immersion. There is not a single mention of baptism by sprinkling or pouring anywhere in the entire New Testament, and such a method is never even implied in any passages on baptism. There is no direct mention of immersion in the New Testament, but all of the baptism passages are fully consistent with (and most of them strongly imply) full immersion by the act of dipping the believer under the water.
Therefore, if you were baptized as an infant, or if you were baptized by sprinkling or pouring rather than by immersion, then perhaps you have never had a true Christian baptism. That's between you and God, but it's worth seeking His guidance about. Remember, Jesus specifically commanded Christians to be baptized (see Matthew 28:19), and therefore this is an important issue of obedience.
-
We saw that if we baptize people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" then we are being obedient to Jesus' direct command in the Great Commission. But we also have Scriptural examples which tell us that we don't need to be dogmatic on this point, because apparently it was acceptable for the early Christians to baptize people "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "into the name of the Lord Jesus."
-
Finally, we saw that Jesus commanded all Christians to go and make new disciples. Since all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to "go," and since all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to "make disciples," then all of us ordinary Christians are commanded to be "baptizing them" as well. I don't think it is wrong to let most of the baptizing be done by ministers or pastors, but if none are available then we have the Scriptural precedent to do like Philip did when he baptized the eunuch in Acts 8:36-38.
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!
|
|