- Dec 31, 2017
- 75
- 7
- 124
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Why Baptism is Essential to Salvation: It's Time to Take Off the Denominational Sunglasses
I want to preface this by making sure the reader understands two things:
1. I was raised in the church of Christ and realize that there is a history of bad blood between members of the church and, say, Baptists or Presbyterians who do not believe in the essential nature of baptism. Rightfully so, these denominations have felt they are condemned by their "faith only" salvation mindset by members of the church of Christ. I personally have chosen to believe that if you say you are a Christian, and are living that out in your life, that I just choose to believe that you are a Christian. However, I firmly believe that your faith is blinded by denominational terminology and tradition and that if you are truly seeking the Kingdom, that you will listen to what I have to say. As the title suggests, it's time to take off the 'denominational sunglasses' and try and look at the scripture for what IT says, not what MAN says about scripture. I believe that the churches of Christ have some glaring faults that have been and are being addressed, but none of them are salvation important faults. I do believe that in the area of baptism, the church of Christ is the only section of Christendom that may have it right. I pray that this is not true though.
2. You may not believe it, but I do NOT look at denominations as the enemy, but as the opportunity. I care SO much that the Christ seeker looks to scripture and not to their man made traditions. In Matthew 6:33, Jesus commands us to seek FIRST his kingdom. I'm seeking this not just for myself, but hopefully for everyone around me. I promise you I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to encourage people to step outside of the only religious boundaries we know, and truly examine the scriptures as our only guide.
We need to go into this with a set of rules to establish our foundation. As long as we can start here, we have a level playing field. If we can't agree on them then you may as well not be reading this in the first place. These rules are:
1. We agree that the Bible and the scripture within are God breathed and inspired.
2. We agree that ALL of what the Bible teaches is accurate, true and essential to our knowledge of Him who created us.
3. (And this is where I feel, unfortunately, I'm going to lose some of you) What the scripture states (or does not state) is vastly more important than man made terminology we have created over time.
#3 is where we need to start. It is vital in your Christian walk to know that if your denomination has a term, or set of words that are not specifically in scripture, that you SERIOUSLY question that ideology. For instance, The Sinner's Prayer is a good example. It simply is not in the Bible. The term "Accept Jesus into your heart" simply is not in the Bible. The statement "Baptism is only a symbol" is, once again, simply not in the Bible. All three of the above statements have come from interpretations of select verses without looking at the whole.
Let's begin with an example of quality versus quantity so that we can illustrate some of the following points. When examining textual variations within some of the thousands of Biblical manuscripts that we have obtained over time, scholars have a set of rules that they apply to what should stay and what should not (read "How We Got The Bible" by Lightfoot for more on this. It is also an excellent book). When there is a variation between manuscripts, scholars choose to look towards the most quality manuscript first, not necessarily the quantity of manuscripts with the variation. When looking at the following, it is important that just because a quantity of scriptures does not mention a particular item, it does not negate the quality scriptures that do.
I began thinking of writing this when I opened my Bible application on my phone and found an article titled, "What is Baptism?". Curiously I opened it and found the following points that they state are "significant". First, they say "Baptism isn't what saves you." They back this statement up with Ephesians 2:8-9, a favorite of the faith-only crowd. Look at rule #3 above. This verse simply does not say "Baptism isn't what saves you". This is the reader adding this to the chosen scripture. You can say baptism isn't what saves you all day long, but if you read Acts 2:37-38, it clearly says that repentance and baptism are essential to the forgiveness of sins (here again we must agree that forgiveness of sins is salvation or we aren't standing on an even ground once more). But we'll come back to this.
The second statement the article made was "Baptism is a symbol." I was discouraged to find that there was no scripture to even back this statement up. A Bible App, making Bible statements with no scriptural backing? Alarms should go off for anyone in this case. I can only assume that they would refer to 1 Peter 3:21 which is constantly misread and taken out of context to try and support the "baptism is a symbol" statement. We'll also examine this scripture as well.
I opened up an article on Neverthirsty.org where a reader states that they believe that baptism is required for salvation. The reader chooses Acts 2:36-38, John 3:1-7 and Romans 6:3-4 as sources for this belief. The unnamed author then chooses to make four points that state why baptism is not essential to salvation. In his very first paragraph he completely negates the rest of his argument. He says, "We need to honestly ask ourselves the following question. Why, if baptism is the key difference between eternal life with God or eternal life in hell why does it ONLY show up in four places in the New Testament "as a condition of salvation" " (not edited for grammatical errors). I had to stop and re-read it. Did he just admit that scripture has baptism as a condition of salvation, and yet, because it is only in there four times, that it's not applicable? He goes on to state that at least "25 other times baptism is never mentioned as a condition of salvation". My first question to the author is, how many times does the Bible need to state ANYTHING is a condition of salvation before you agree that it is, in fact, a condition of salvation??? Let's also go back to our quality versus quantity statement. First of all, I disagree that there are ONLY four, but even if there were, would a verse that only mentions faith completely negate a verse that mentions repentance and baptism? Refer to rule #2 above.
Here's a silly yet applicable illustration. If Acts 2:37-38 mentioned that forgiveness of sins required repentance and dipping your head in goat urine, yet it was mentioned nowhere else in the Bible and only faith was mentioned, would that negate the goat urine act? I very much hope that you, along with me would gladly dip your head in the urine for your salvation! However the goat urine is baptism and baptism is mentioned far more than once in reference to the forgiveness of our sins, the washing of our sins and our salvation through baptism.
I'd like to address his other points as well. Two of them are easily addressed. He references Luke 7:50 where Jesus says to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." The other is of the thief on the cross. He states that because Jesus never mentions baptism, that it is proof that it is not a requirement. I must stop here and say this. If that is the truth, why in the world do you waste your time with it at all? The truth that is not addressed is that the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus entered into Heaven. The temple curtain had not even torn in two when Jesus forgave the thief (representing the direct access we now had to our savior) and Jesus himself said that the Holy Spirit could not come until he ascended into Heaven (John 16:7). The truth of the matter is that Jesus specifically addresses the importance of baptism in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16. If we reference our quality over quantity illustration, I certainly hope that we can agree that what Jesus says is our MOST quality scriptures of all.
The last point that the author of the Neverthirsty article mentions is Acts 10:43. He states that "Cornelius and his family were saved by faith without being baptized. Notice the Holy Spirit comes upon these new believers and Peter is surprised." Let's break that down. Referring to our rule #3, his first sentence simply is not in the scripture. It does not say that they were saved without baptism. The author has chosen to add it to support his preconceived belief that it is not essential. His second sentence is either a falsity told by the author or he is willingly blind. The scripture tells us that the Jewish Christians were surprised, NOT Peter, and they were surprised that the Holy Spirit would come down on Gentiles. Peter was not surprised and goes on to tell them that there is no reason the Gentiles can't be baptized (a condition of salvation as stated by the same author who is trying to prove it is not a condition of salvation). To examine it even further, Peter was an apostle, of which no longer exist today, and the power of the Holy Spirit was shown in this instance for the specific purpose of proving to the Jews that the Gentiles could receive salvation as well. If baptism was not essential, Peter would have said, "Welp, you've received the Holy Spirit so there's no need for baptism." Instead, baptism, as stated time and time again in the New Testament was essential for the washing of their sins; their salvation.
Let's examine Acts 2:37-38. Peter tells the people to repent AND be baptized FOR the forgiveness of their sins. By doing so he says the gift of the Holy Spirit is given. When examining this under the same microscope that the faith-only crowd might do, I could say that since faith and God's grace is not mentioned, that neither are required for salvation. We know that this is not true, but if we are basing our rules by assuming that not seeing faith and grace in this passage somehow negates them from being required for salvation, we are doing the same thing that is being done when saying that baptism is not required because it isn't mentioned in a faith only verse. We know this is silly, but if it applies one way, then it must apply both ways. In the end, the decision must be made to apply the New Covenant as a whole, not in parts and under the lens of denominational importance.
Now let's walk through 1 Peter 3:21. This verse is used to try and convince people that baptism is a symbol. However, it does the complete opposite and shows that it is not only NOT a symbol, but a "condition of salvation". "...and this water (this is the water of Noah's flood) symbolizes baptism (note that the WATER symbolizes baptism, not the other way around) that now saves you also (it is very clearly saying that the baptism now saves you)." We're going to pause here and go back to the first "significant" statement that my Bible app tried to tell me today: "Baptism isn't what saves you". This verse LITERALLY word for word just said that it does save you. Okay, back to 1 Peter 3:21 "...that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It (It being baptism) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Twice in one single verse we are told that baptism saves us. Faith and grace are nowhere mentioned again as a reference back to my last paragraph. Instead we are told twice that baptism saves us and that it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Note that the resurrection is mentioned. This should be important in referencing pre-resurrection times when Jesus told people they were saved (Luke 7:50 and the thief on the cross).
The last point I would like to address is the common argument that baptism cannot be necessary because it is a work and that the Bible says we are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9). Let's review our rule #3 again. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is a work. But let's take it even further. Let's say the Bible had a verse that specifically stated, "Baptism is a work" and nothing else changed in the Bible. Would this negate Jesus himself saying that "Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved"? (Mark 16:16) Of course it wouldn't, but somehow the faith-only crowd would like use Eph 2:8-9 against Jesus himself! Baptism is not a work but rather is an act of faith that is shown over and over again to be an essential part of our salvation.
For example, I took a Christian brother to his cancer treatment today and went "out of my way" to do so. This was a work of faith. It was a work of love (I hope). But do I think this work saves me? Of course not! I did it because Jesus has asked me to look after the needy. I already know that Jesus did all the work for me on the cross. But being baptized is not going "out of my way". It is simply doing what Jesus commands us to do and says saves us.
It's been brought to my attention more than once when getting to this point that people will change the debate to something like, "Well what about the primitive villager in Brazil who has never seen a Bible and could never have been baptized or had a chance to know about Jesus. You're saying they all went to Hell?" It shouldn't have to be said, but I am not the judge of anyone's eternal situation. God is completely in charge there and I believe that God examines each and every person and the situation within which he has placed them.
The focus should not be placed on the primitive who does not have a Bible, but on the Christian who DOES have the Bible. Don't you believe that God would be much less pleased with the person who had the knowledge at their fingertips every day of their life, yet refused to look past what their denomination had taught them? Religion is just a set of rules, but spirituality is the FREEDOM to examine God's perfect holy Word for ourselves. It's time to break away from our denominational sunglasses and find the truth for ourselves.
I want to end with this: I SINCERELY and very badly want to go to Heaven and worship my creator forever. I personally believe that I have found that answer through belief, repentance, faith, grace, mercy...and yes, baptism. If I am wrong, I want someone to tell me why. Apply rules 1-3 above and if you can dispute anything I've said, please let me know. God be the glory always.
References:
1. www.neverthirsty.org/bible-q/qa-archives/question/the-bible-never-says-that-we-have-to-be-baptized-to-be-saved
2. YouVersion Bible Application Plan "What is Baptism?"
I want to preface this by making sure the reader understands two things:
1. I was raised in the church of Christ and realize that there is a history of bad blood between members of the church and, say, Baptists or Presbyterians who do not believe in the essential nature of baptism. Rightfully so, these denominations have felt they are condemned by their "faith only" salvation mindset by members of the church of Christ. I personally have chosen to believe that if you say you are a Christian, and are living that out in your life, that I just choose to believe that you are a Christian. However, I firmly believe that your faith is blinded by denominational terminology and tradition and that if you are truly seeking the Kingdom, that you will listen to what I have to say. As the title suggests, it's time to take off the 'denominational sunglasses' and try and look at the scripture for what IT says, not what MAN says about scripture. I believe that the churches of Christ have some glaring faults that have been and are being addressed, but none of them are salvation important faults. I do believe that in the area of baptism, the church of Christ is the only section of Christendom that may have it right. I pray that this is not true though.
2. You may not believe it, but I do NOT look at denominations as the enemy, but as the opportunity. I care SO much that the Christ seeker looks to scripture and not to their man made traditions. In Matthew 6:33, Jesus commands us to seek FIRST his kingdom. I'm seeking this not just for myself, but hopefully for everyone around me. I promise you I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to encourage people to step outside of the only religious boundaries we know, and truly examine the scriptures as our only guide.
We need to go into this with a set of rules to establish our foundation. As long as we can start here, we have a level playing field. If we can't agree on them then you may as well not be reading this in the first place. These rules are:
1. We agree that the Bible and the scripture within are God breathed and inspired.
2. We agree that ALL of what the Bible teaches is accurate, true and essential to our knowledge of Him who created us.
3. (And this is where I feel, unfortunately, I'm going to lose some of you) What the scripture states (or does not state) is vastly more important than man made terminology we have created over time.
#3 is where we need to start. It is vital in your Christian walk to know that if your denomination has a term, or set of words that are not specifically in scripture, that you SERIOUSLY question that ideology. For instance, The Sinner's Prayer is a good example. It simply is not in the Bible. The term "Accept Jesus into your heart" simply is not in the Bible. The statement "Baptism is only a symbol" is, once again, simply not in the Bible. All three of the above statements have come from interpretations of select verses without looking at the whole.
Let's begin with an example of quality versus quantity so that we can illustrate some of the following points. When examining textual variations within some of the thousands of Biblical manuscripts that we have obtained over time, scholars have a set of rules that they apply to what should stay and what should not (read "How We Got The Bible" by Lightfoot for more on this. It is also an excellent book). When there is a variation between manuscripts, scholars choose to look towards the most quality manuscript first, not necessarily the quantity of manuscripts with the variation. When looking at the following, it is important that just because a quantity of scriptures does not mention a particular item, it does not negate the quality scriptures that do.
I began thinking of writing this when I opened my Bible application on my phone and found an article titled, "What is Baptism?". Curiously I opened it and found the following points that they state are "significant". First, they say "Baptism isn't what saves you." They back this statement up with Ephesians 2:8-9, a favorite of the faith-only crowd. Look at rule #3 above. This verse simply does not say "Baptism isn't what saves you". This is the reader adding this to the chosen scripture. You can say baptism isn't what saves you all day long, but if you read Acts 2:37-38, it clearly says that repentance and baptism are essential to the forgiveness of sins (here again we must agree that forgiveness of sins is salvation or we aren't standing on an even ground once more). But we'll come back to this.
The second statement the article made was "Baptism is a symbol." I was discouraged to find that there was no scripture to even back this statement up. A Bible App, making Bible statements with no scriptural backing? Alarms should go off for anyone in this case. I can only assume that they would refer to 1 Peter 3:21 which is constantly misread and taken out of context to try and support the "baptism is a symbol" statement. We'll also examine this scripture as well.
I opened up an article on Neverthirsty.org where a reader states that they believe that baptism is required for salvation. The reader chooses Acts 2:36-38, John 3:1-7 and Romans 6:3-4 as sources for this belief. The unnamed author then chooses to make four points that state why baptism is not essential to salvation. In his very first paragraph he completely negates the rest of his argument. He says, "We need to honestly ask ourselves the following question. Why, if baptism is the key difference between eternal life with God or eternal life in hell why does it ONLY show up in four places in the New Testament "as a condition of salvation" " (not edited for grammatical errors). I had to stop and re-read it. Did he just admit that scripture has baptism as a condition of salvation, and yet, because it is only in there four times, that it's not applicable? He goes on to state that at least "25 other times baptism is never mentioned as a condition of salvation". My first question to the author is, how many times does the Bible need to state ANYTHING is a condition of salvation before you agree that it is, in fact, a condition of salvation??? Let's also go back to our quality versus quantity statement. First of all, I disagree that there are ONLY four, but even if there were, would a verse that only mentions faith completely negate a verse that mentions repentance and baptism? Refer to rule #2 above.
Here's a silly yet applicable illustration. If Acts 2:37-38 mentioned that forgiveness of sins required repentance and dipping your head in goat urine, yet it was mentioned nowhere else in the Bible and only faith was mentioned, would that negate the goat urine act? I very much hope that you, along with me would gladly dip your head in the urine for your salvation! However the goat urine is baptism and baptism is mentioned far more than once in reference to the forgiveness of our sins, the washing of our sins and our salvation through baptism.
I'd like to address his other points as well. Two of them are easily addressed. He references Luke 7:50 where Jesus says to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." The other is of the thief on the cross. He states that because Jesus never mentions baptism, that it is proof that it is not a requirement. I must stop here and say this. If that is the truth, why in the world do you waste your time with it at all? The truth that is not addressed is that the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus entered into Heaven. The temple curtain had not even torn in two when Jesus forgave the thief (representing the direct access we now had to our savior) and Jesus himself said that the Holy Spirit could not come until he ascended into Heaven (John 16:7). The truth of the matter is that Jesus specifically addresses the importance of baptism in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16. If we reference our quality over quantity illustration, I certainly hope that we can agree that what Jesus says is our MOST quality scriptures of all.
The last point that the author of the Neverthirsty article mentions is Acts 10:43. He states that "Cornelius and his family were saved by faith without being baptized. Notice the Holy Spirit comes upon these new believers and Peter is surprised." Let's break that down. Referring to our rule #3, his first sentence simply is not in the scripture. It does not say that they were saved without baptism. The author has chosen to add it to support his preconceived belief that it is not essential. His second sentence is either a falsity told by the author or he is willingly blind. The scripture tells us that the Jewish Christians were surprised, NOT Peter, and they were surprised that the Holy Spirit would come down on Gentiles. Peter was not surprised and goes on to tell them that there is no reason the Gentiles can't be baptized (a condition of salvation as stated by the same author who is trying to prove it is not a condition of salvation). To examine it even further, Peter was an apostle, of which no longer exist today, and the power of the Holy Spirit was shown in this instance for the specific purpose of proving to the Jews that the Gentiles could receive salvation as well. If baptism was not essential, Peter would have said, "Welp, you've received the Holy Spirit so there's no need for baptism." Instead, baptism, as stated time and time again in the New Testament was essential for the washing of their sins; their salvation.
Let's examine Acts 2:37-38. Peter tells the people to repent AND be baptized FOR the forgiveness of their sins. By doing so he says the gift of the Holy Spirit is given. When examining this under the same microscope that the faith-only crowd might do, I could say that since faith and God's grace is not mentioned, that neither are required for salvation. We know that this is not true, but if we are basing our rules by assuming that not seeing faith and grace in this passage somehow negates them from being required for salvation, we are doing the same thing that is being done when saying that baptism is not required because it isn't mentioned in a faith only verse. We know this is silly, but if it applies one way, then it must apply both ways. In the end, the decision must be made to apply the New Covenant as a whole, not in parts and under the lens of denominational importance.
Now let's walk through 1 Peter 3:21. This verse is used to try and convince people that baptism is a symbol. However, it does the complete opposite and shows that it is not only NOT a symbol, but a "condition of salvation". "...and this water (this is the water of Noah's flood) symbolizes baptism (note that the WATER symbolizes baptism, not the other way around) that now saves you also (it is very clearly saying that the baptism now saves you)." We're going to pause here and go back to the first "significant" statement that my Bible app tried to tell me today: "Baptism isn't what saves you". This verse LITERALLY word for word just said that it does save you. Okay, back to 1 Peter 3:21 "...that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It (It being baptism) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Twice in one single verse we are told that baptism saves us. Faith and grace are nowhere mentioned again as a reference back to my last paragraph. Instead we are told twice that baptism saves us and that it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Note that the resurrection is mentioned. This should be important in referencing pre-resurrection times when Jesus told people they were saved (Luke 7:50 and the thief on the cross).
The last point I would like to address is the common argument that baptism cannot be necessary because it is a work and that the Bible says we are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9). Let's review our rule #3 again. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism is a work. But let's take it even further. Let's say the Bible had a verse that specifically stated, "Baptism is a work" and nothing else changed in the Bible. Would this negate Jesus himself saying that "Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved"? (Mark 16:16) Of course it wouldn't, but somehow the faith-only crowd would like use Eph 2:8-9 against Jesus himself! Baptism is not a work but rather is an act of faith that is shown over and over again to be an essential part of our salvation.
For example, I took a Christian brother to his cancer treatment today and went "out of my way" to do so. This was a work of faith. It was a work of love (I hope). But do I think this work saves me? Of course not! I did it because Jesus has asked me to look after the needy. I already know that Jesus did all the work for me on the cross. But being baptized is not going "out of my way". It is simply doing what Jesus commands us to do and says saves us.
It's been brought to my attention more than once when getting to this point that people will change the debate to something like, "Well what about the primitive villager in Brazil who has never seen a Bible and could never have been baptized or had a chance to know about Jesus. You're saying they all went to Hell?" It shouldn't have to be said, but I am not the judge of anyone's eternal situation. God is completely in charge there and I believe that God examines each and every person and the situation within which he has placed them.
The focus should not be placed on the primitive who does not have a Bible, but on the Christian who DOES have the Bible. Don't you believe that God would be much less pleased with the person who had the knowledge at their fingertips every day of their life, yet refused to look past what their denomination had taught them? Religion is just a set of rules, but spirituality is the FREEDOM to examine God's perfect holy Word for ourselves. It's time to break away from our denominational sunglasses and find the truth for ourselves.
I want to end with this: I SINCERELY and very badly want to go to Heaven and worship my creator forever. I personally believe that I have found that answer through belief, repentance, faith, grace, mercy...and yes, baptism. If I am wrong, I want someone to tell me why. Apply rules 1-3 above and if you can dispute anything I've said, please let me know. God be the glory always.
References:
1. www.neverthirsty.org/bible-q/qa-archives/question/the-bible-never-says-that-we-have-to-be-baptized-to-be-saved
2. YouVersion Bible Application Plan "What is Baptism?"
