Is baptism necessary for salvation?

[greatdivide46]

Originally posted by Hentenza

Where in scripture does it teach that baptism links to salvation?

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 come immediately to mind. But really anywhere Christian baptism is mentioned after Acts 1 it is linked with salvation.

 

[RobertZ]

When you compare scripture with scripture you will find that the seal, the promised Holy Spirit is given when one is baptized (see Acts 2:38)

No sir, that isnt what the passage says at all. Ephesians clearly states the seal is given after hearing and believing the Gospel of your salvation. No mention of baptism at all in that passage.

Acts 2:38 is a whole nother matter which has absolutely nothing to do with being sealed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[RobertZ]

I don't know why some people are so against baptism that they refuse to allow God to save a person at the point of their baptism.

Because that isnt what the Bible teaches.

 

[greatdivide46]

No sir, that isnt what the passage says at all. Ephesians clearly states the seal is given after hearing and believing the Gospel of your salvation. No mention of baptism at all in that passage.

Acts 2:38 is a whole nother matter which has absolutely nothing to do with being sealed by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree since the Word specifically says in Acts 2:38 that one will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when they repent and are baptized.

 

[greatdivide46]

Because that isnt what the Bible teaches.

Again I disagree. That is precisely what the Bible teaches.

 

[Hentenza]

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 come immediately to mind.

Neither one of those verses links baptism with salvation. I did an exegesis of Acts 2:38 in a previous post in this thread already.

But really anywhere Christian baptism is mentioned after Acts 1 it is linked with salvation.

Where?

 

[Hentenza]

Again you are placing much more into baptism that is intended to be there. Baptism is not a cause of salvation at all, much less a co-cause with faith. As I have said repeatedly baptism in and of itself saves no one. Only God can save and the fact that he chooses to do so when we are baptized is abundantly clear in scripture. I don't know why some people are so against baptism that they refuse to allow God to save a person at the point of their baptism.

This is what you said:

However, baptism definitely saves in the sense that it is the point in time that God does His work of salvation.

Did you not?

 

[Hentenza]

I disagree since the Word specifically says in Acts 2:38 that one will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when they repent and are baptized.

See my post #16 in this thread and explain why the same apostle that spoke Acts 2:38 is in conflict with what he said on Acts 10.

 

[busdriver72]

Interesting discussion.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the fact that baptism was done by those before Christ during the ministry of John the Baptist. Baptism was something that was submitted to since it indicated that the one being baptized was repenting and submitting to the Lord. It represented an end of a rebllious life, and the start of a new life for the Lord.
Also, if one is going to attribute saving power to the act of baptism then one must also consider the fact that Jesus Himself submitted to baptism.
If anyone is going to suggest that Jesus got baptized to be saved, I will gladly contend with them. God the Son, God incarnate had no need of salvation, yet He submitted to it. He did not have to, yet He did in showing His complete submission to His Father and to everything that is associated with righteouness...setting an example. John admitted He needed to be baptized by Jesus, but there is no record he ever was. Was John the Baptist saved? All of the others who believed in Christ in the gospels...of whom we have no record of them being baptized...were they saved? Those who claim the thief on the cross who confessed Christ had already been baptized argue from the point of 100% pure speculation. When those who hold to it ask "Well, how else could he had been with Christ in paradise?" I will tell you how...because the Son of God said so.
1st Peter 3:21 does say baptism saves you...but you have to read the entire thing...not the removal of the filth of the flesh...but the answer...the response of a good conscience toward God!! It is the response of a saved person! A supposed "saved" person who is apathetic toward or resisting baptism does not have a "baptism" problem...but a problem in their heart and mind toward the Lord. Baptism is also commanded by the Lord in the great commission, so it is not optional. OBEDIENCE to the Lord is not optional. It could even be called a "good work" if you wish...an act of obedience...even though it doesn't produce salvation itself...it is not optional. I think sometimes people think that because most baptist believe it is not a saving act that they believe we think it is optional. Obedience doesn't save...but it is not optional, and if someone thinks it is optional, then there is a problem at the faith level.
But if a person dies before they are baptized...with no chance to do it...or they did not know of the command....I cannot envision God saying to them "Yes...I know you believed in My Son....yes, I know you repented and wanted to follow Him...but you never got baptized....so to hell with you!"

 

[Hentenza]

Interesting discussion.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the fact that baptism was done by those before Christ during the ministry of John the Baptist. Baptism was something that was submitted to since it indicated that the one being baptized was repenting and submitting to the Lord. It represented an end of a rebllious life, and the start of a new life for the Lord.
Also, if one is going to attribute saving power to the act of baptism then one must also consider the fact that Jesus Himself submitted to baptism.
If anyone is going to suggest that Jesus got baptized to be saved, I will gladly contend with them. God the Son, God incarnate had no need of salvation, yet He submitted to it. He did not have to, yet He did in showing His complete submission to His Father and to everything that is associated with righteouness...setting an example. John admitted He needed to be baptized by Jesus, but there is no record he ever was. Was John the Baptist saved? All of the others who believed in Christ in the gospels...of whom we have no record of them being baptized...were they saved? Those who claim the thief on the cross who confessed Christ had already been baptized argue from the point of 100% pure speculation. When those who hold to it ask "Well, how else could he had been with Christ in paradise?" I will tell you how...because the Son of God said so.
1st Peter 3:21 does say baptism saves you...but you have to read the entire thing...not the removal of the filth of the flesh...but the answer...the response of a good conscience toward God!! It is the response of a saved person! A supposed "saved" person who is apathetic toward or resisting baptism does not have a "baptism" problem...but a problem in their heart and mind toward the Lord. Baptism is also commanded by the Lord in the great commission, so it is not optional. OBEDIENCE to the Lord is not optional. It could even be called a "good work" if you wish...an act of obedience...even though it doesn't produce salvation itself...it is not optional. I think sometimes people think that because most baptist believe it is not a saving act that they believe we think it is optional. Obedience doesn't save...but it is not optional, and if someone thinks it is optional, then there is a problem at the faith level.
But if a person dies before they are baptized...with no chance to do it...or they did not know of the command....I cannot envision God saying to them "Yes...I know you believed in My Son....yes, I know you repented and wanted to follow Him...but you never got baptized....so to hell with you!"

Good post.Thanks for saving me the time to explain 1 Peter 3:21.

 

[If Not For Grace]

The command to baptize came after the cross

At the cross ..It was finished...

 

[busdriver72]

At the cross ..It was finished...

Most folks know who Larry the Cable Guy is and his logo "Get'er done!"
I saw a t-shirt the other day, it had on it "John 19:30" and then it read "GOT'er done!"
He did!

 

[RobertZ]

Interesting discussion.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the fact that baptism was done by those before Christ during the ministry of John the Baptist. Baptism was something that was submitted to since it indicated that the one being baptized was repenting and submitting to the Lord. It represented an end of a rebllious life, and the start of a new life for the Lord.
Also, if one is going to attribute saving power to the act of baptism then one must also consider the fact that Jesus Himself submitted to baptism.
If anyone is going to suggest that Jesus got baptized to be saved, I will gladly contend with them. God the Son, God incarnate had no need of salvation, yet He submitted to it. He did not have to, yet He did in showing His complete submission to His Father and to everything that is associated with righteouness...setting an example. John admitted He needed to be baptized by Jesus, but there is no record he ever was. Was John the Baptist saved? All of the others who believed in Christ in the gospels...of whom we have no record of them being baptized...were they saved? Those who claim the thief on the cross who confessed Christ had already been baptized argue from the point of 100% pure speculation. When those who hold to it ask "Well, how else could he had been with Christ in paradise?" I will tell you how...because the Son of God said so.
1st Peter 3:21 does say baptism saves you...but you have to read the entire thing...not the removal of the filth of the flesh...but the answer...the response of a good conscience toward God!! It is the response of a saved person! A supposed "saved" person who is apathetic toward or resisting baptism does not have a "baptism" problem...but a problem in their heart and mind toward the Lord. Baptism is also commanded by the Lord in the great commission, so it is not optional. OBEDIENCE to the Lord is not optional. It could even be called a "good work" if you wish...an act of obedience...even though it doesn't produce salvation itself...it is not optional. I think sometimes people think that because most baptist believe it is not a saving act that they believe we think it is optional. Obedience doesn't save...but it is not optional, and if someone thinks it is optional, then there is a problem at the faith level.
But if a person dies before they are baptized...with no chance to do it...or they did not know of the command....I cannot envision God saying to them "Yes...I know you believed in My Son....yes, I know you repented and wanted to follow Him...but you never got baptized....so to hell with you!"

 

[greatdivide46]

Originally posted by Hentenza

This is what you said:

However, baptism definitely saves in the sense that it is the point in time that God does His work of salvation.

Did you not?

Yep, I said that.

 

[greatdivide46]

Interesting discussion.
One thing that I have not seen mentioned is the fact that baptism was done by those before Christ during the ministry of John the Baptist. Baptism was something that was submitted to since it indicated that the one being baptized was repenting and submitting to the Lord. It represented an end of a rebllious life, and the start of a new life for the Lord.

I agree with this paragraph.

Also, if one is going to attribute saving power to the act of baptism then one must also consider the fact that Jesus Himself submitted to baptism.

There is no saving power in the act of baptism.

If anyone is going to suggest that Jesus got baptized to be saved, I will gladly contend with them. God the Son, God incarnate had no need of salvation, yet He submitted to it. He did not have to, yet He did in showing His complete submission to His Father and to everything that is associated with righteouness...setting an example.

Agreed.

John admitted He needed to be baptized by Jesus, but there is no record he ever was. Was John the Baptist saved? All of the others who believed in Christ in the gospels...of whom we have no record of them being baptized...were they saved?

Yes, all those were saved. (BTW I'd be interested in who, other than the apostles, are recorded as believing in Christ but there's no record of them being baptized.)

Those who claim the thief on the cross who confessed Christ had already been baptized argue from the point of 100% pure speculation. When those who hold to it ask "Well, how else could he had been with Christ in paradise?" I will tell you how...because the Son of God said so.

Completely agree.

 

[greatdivide46]

1st Peter 3:21 does say baptism saves you...but you have to read the entire thing...not the removal of the filth of the flesh...but the answer...the response of a good conscience toward God!! It is the response of a saved person! A supposed "saved" person who is apathetic toward or resisting baptism does not have a "baptism" problem...but a problem in their heart and mind toward the Lord. Baptism is also commanded by the Lord in the great commission, so it is not optional. OBEDIENCE to the Lord is not optional. It could even be called a "good work" if you wish...an act of obedience...even though it doesn't produce salvation itself...it is not optional. I think sometimes people think that because most baptist believe it is not a saving act that they believe we think it is optional. Obedience doesn't save...but it is not optional, and if someone thinks it is optional, then there is a problem at the faith level.
But if a person dies before they are baptized...with no chance to do it...or they did not know of the command....I cannot envision God saying to them "Yes...I know you believed in My Son....yes, I know you repented and wanted to follow Him...but you never got baptized....so to hell with you!"

While I disagree somewhat with your analysis of 1 Peter 3:21, I do agree completely with your last sentence. A believer who dies before they are baptized because of lack of opportunity, ability, or knowledge will still be saved. But a person who knows to be baptized yet refuses to do so will have a problem, I believe.

 

[greatdivide46]

Hentenza,
I read your analysis of Acts 2:38 in post #16. While I'm not an expert on translations, I've never yet read a version of the Bible that translates eis as "because of" in this verse. In fact "because of" as a translation for eis is highly suspect at best according to the lexicons I've seen referenced in other analyses of this verse (Arndt & Gingrich and Oepke).

The exact phrase "for the remission of sins" not only appears in Acts 2:38 but also in Matthew 26:28. Surely you would not contend for the "because of" translation for eis in the Matthew verse, would you? That would have Jesus saying that His blood was poured out for many because their sins have already been forgiven. Doesn't sound quite right to me.

 

[phoenixdem]

While I disagree somewhat with your analysis of 1 Peter 3:21, I do agree completely with your last sentence. A believer who dies before they are baptized because of lack of opportunity, ability, or knowledge will still be saved. But a person who knows to be baptized yet refuses to do so will have a problem, I believe.

" A believer who dies before they are baptized because of lack of opportunity, ability, or knowledge will still be saved. But a person who knows to be baptized yet refuses to do so will have a problem, I believe. "

Define problem in this instance. Baptism either saves or it doesn't. The people of God in the Old Testament were either saved by faith or they were saved by works of the Law. Since the Scripture makes it clear that it is faith that saves, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, those who trust in faith alone are on solid ground. Those who trust in their own works, for example, being baptized, will have a problem since they are trusting in their own works for salvation.

 

[Hentenza]

Hentenza,
I read your analysis of Acts 2:38 in post #16. While I'm not an expert on translations, I've never yet read a version of the Bible that translates eis as "because of" in this verse. In fact "because of" as a translation for eis is highly suspect at best according to the lexicons I've seen referenced in other analyses of this verse (Arndt & Gingrich and Oepke).

The exact phrase "for the remission of sins" not only appears in Acts 2:38 but also in Matthew 26:28. Surely you would not contend for the "because of" translation for eis in the Matthew verse, would you? That would have Jesus saying that His blood was poured out for many because their sins have already been forgiven. Doesn't sound quite right to me.

Brother, I was explicit that eis has a large semantic range of meaning. One can not take one of the meanings and apply it to all instances of eis throughout scripture without context. There are a plethora of verses throughout the NT that corroborate that the blood of Jesus does forgive sin, however, that does not hold true for baptism. In fact, the same apostle that spoke Acts 2:38 also spoke Acts 10:43-48. If Peter meant in Acts 2 that the work of baptism is what forgives sin then he contradicted himself in Acts 10. Matthew understood perfectly that it was faith in Christ and His work that forgave sin. Matthew did not include baptism in Matt. 26:28 either.

 

[greatdivide46]

" A believer who dies before they are baptized because of lack of opportunity, ability, or knowledge will still be saved. But a person who knows to be baptized yet refuses to do so will have a problem, I believe. "

Define problem in this instance. Baptism either saves or it doesn't. The people of God in the Old Testament were either saved by faith or they were saved by works of the Law. Since the Scripture makes it clear that it is faith that saves, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, those who trust in faith alone are on solid ground. Those who trust in their own works, for example, being baptized, will have a problem since they are trusting in their own works for salvation.

Problem = lack of faith in the promises of God.

I have said repeatedly that baptism does not save. People are saved by grace through faith for good works at baptism. I can't understand why it's so hard to accept that God saves us at baptism. That certainly takes nothing away from God's power to save us. Nor does it add any saving power to baptism.

Nowhere does the Bible say that people are saved by faith alone. The only time faith alone is mentioned in the Bible it is characterized as dead faith.

This is no doubt that we are saved by grace through faith. But there is also no doubt that we are nowhere told that we are saved by faith alone.

Baptism is in no way to be construed as a work. As Martin Luther said the only works in baptism is God's works.