Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation - A Response to Protestants

I was recently involved in a debate on a Protestant blog on whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The moderator of the board subsequently posted the following article. It appears to me that he was trying to rebut my arguments. Since I have my doubts as to whether I will be allowed to respond to the article on his blog, I’m posting my response here. The article is long, so I will be doing this in two parts.

This article was taken from Pulpit Magazine. The article is in Ariel and my responses are in Georgia.

Is water baptism necessary for salvation? No. Let’s examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:

“First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).”

In fact, it is NOT clear. The author errs in assuming that the above passages refer, explicitly or implicitly, to baptism. They do not. Those passages deal with the specific question of whether Gentiles who came to believe in Christ had to fulfill the old Mosaic laws regarding circumcision and dietary restrictions. They say nothing about acts commanded by Christ. So the author must first prove that these passages somehow refer to baptism before he can claim support from them.

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?

In fact, Peter did not just “mention” baptism. Rather, he was very specific in stating, in Acts 2:38, “’Repent and be baptized, ⁷ every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.’” Yet the author just glosses over this because it does not fit his template. Instead, he points to several sections where Peter does not mention baptism and claims 1) that his silence is somehow tantamount to stating that baptism does not result in the remission of sins; and 2) that such statement overrides Peter’s EXPLICIT statement that baptism DOES result in the remission of sins. Where is the logic in that position?

Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.

Again, the author errs by making presumptions without evidence and by ignoring explicit mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul mentions holding on to the Gospel he has preached and gives a one sentence summary of Jesus living, dying and coming back to life. This in no way shows whether Paul did or did not preach baptism for the remission of sins, and it is incumbent upon the author to show Paul did not. Also, if you go further down the chapter, to 1 Corinthians 29, Paul explicitly mentions baptism. “Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?”

The author also takes Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 out of context. In verses 10 through 16, Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for their rivalries. “I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to ⁵ Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."” (1 Cor. 1:12). He then states that he has only baptized a few of them himself, and he is glad he did not baptize the others, “so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.” He then states that he came not to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

Notice what is going on here. First, Paul does NOT say that the Corinthians are not baptized, but rather, that he did not himself baptize most of them; rather, it was performed by others. Second, he acknowledges having performed baptisms himself. Third, he states that they are baptized in the name of Christ, not in his name or someone else’s name. His point is that while a person may dunk you in the water, it is Christ that is cleansing you of your sin during that dunking.

Paul himself has contradicted two of the author’s points: first, that baptism is somehow an act separated from Christ, and second, that Paul did not preach baptism. Only by pulling the passages out of their chapters, and thus, out of their contexts, can the author attempt to support his point.

Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

I have just shown above that Paul did baptize and viewed it as part of the Gospel and part of salvation.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).

Yes, when Jesus walked the Earth he personally forgave the sins of certain people with whom he came in contact. Christ can do that. That does not change the fact that he personally preached baptism for the remission of sins. John 3:5 states, “Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”” Matthew 28:18-20 states, “Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, ¹² and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. ¹³ And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."” In Mark 16:16, Jesus states, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

As for the Apostles, with regard to the original twelve, while we may not have a record of them being baptized themselves, we do have a record of them performing baptisms in John 3:22. John 3:22 states, “After this [his discussion with Nicodemus the Pharisee], Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” Are we to assume that any mention of “his disciples” does not refer to the Apostles? Were they not also disciples?

Further, we know that Paul was baptized, and that he himself said that the baptism washed away his sins. In Acts 22, Paul appears in the Temple in Jerusalem and gives his defense, relating his conversion story. In verses 12 through 16, Paul states:

"A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me and stood there and said, 'Saul, my brother, regain your sight.' And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him. Then he said, 'The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice; for you will be his witness ² before all to what you have seen and heard. Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.'”

Notice that Paul states that even after his sight is restored, Ananias told him he needed to have his sins washed away.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

Actually, if you read the entire chapter, it is clear that the purpose of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit before their baptism was to show the Jewish community that Christ intended for the Gentiles to also be saved. Peter was forced to justify his actions to the Jews, and when the Spirit poured down, he said, essentially, “What further proof do you need?” This did not eliminate the need for those people to be baptized. In fact, if baptism were not necessary for salvation, then Peter went through a lot of hassle from the Jews for nothing.

Further, Peter himself preached the necessity of baptism for salvation. Besides Act 2:38, Peter also stated in 1 Peter 3:21-22,

“This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God ⁷ for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.”

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture—we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn’t contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.

By that standard, Case Closed. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Part II will come tomorrow.