In this article, I want to consider some of the various arguments against the essentiality of baptism in the salvation process. However, before I look at some of the common arguments for rejecting baptism as essential to salvation, let me first clarify several things. Firstly, when I talk about baptism in this article, I am referring to the act of a believing, repentant person being fully immersed in water to become a Christian.
Secondly, and let me be clear, I do not believe that there is any power to save in the actual water used to baptise or even the act itself. Neither is there any power in faith, repentance or confession. The power to save always rests with God and the gospel message and God gets to choose when and how He applies that power. From scripture it is clear that He applies the saving power of the gospel when someone responds to it in faith, repentance, confession accumulating in the act of baptism.
Thirdly, although representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, baptism is not the gospel itself. It is a response to the gospel message as largely defined by Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 and preached in Acts 2:14-36. Acts 2:38 is the response to the Peter’s message.
So, having said the above, what are some of the common arguments against the essentiality of baptism in salvation?
1. Many passages speak of faith or belief without any mention of baptism.
This argument is an excellent place to start, as it allows us to explore the meaning of Biblical faith. Certainly, some passages speak of belief or faith without mentioning baptism as a response to the gospel. In John 3:16, Jesus says, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life (Although take a look at John 3:5 & 22-23). Romans 1:16-17 says, ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith”’ (Also consider Romans 3:21-23 and Romans 10:5-13). In Ephesians 2:8, Paul says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith.” And several other passages say something similar.
Some might say, “See, it is obvious that we are saved by faith without baptism. Baptism isn’t even mentioned in these verses”.However, this indicates that they have a very narrow view of faith. Additionally, they assume that Jesus and Paul are saying that grace and faith are the only factors in salvation. However, the scriptures never say that. And, what should we do with those parts of scripture that suggest other spiritual qualities and activities save us without mentioning faith? Should we just cut these out of scripture? For example, in Titus 3:5, Paul says we are saved by mercy “through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit isn’t faith and neither is mercy. So, should we cut these out of the Bible because it doesn’t say we are saved by grace or faith? Likewise, in Luke 13:3 & 5, Jesus says repentance is necessary for salvation but does not mention belief or even grace. Should we ignore this passage? We can also consider Hebrew 9:14, which states that the blood of Jesus saves. Or Romans 8:24, which reveals that hope saves. Dismissing baptism as essential for salvation because it is not mentioned in some passages is an elementary approach to interpreting scripture. Rather than do this, we must consider all the relevant and necessary factors of salvation without dismissing any of them.
That said, could it be that Jesus and the Biblical writers sometimes mention faith as a way of summarising a person’s entire response to the gospel message? For instance, my daughter at the moment is playing basketball. When I tell people she plays basketball, that doesn’t cancel out shooting, dribbling, defending, rebounding, or her teammates. Those things are all part of basketball. Because faith undergirds all the activities involved in our response to the gospel message, could it not be that the Biblical writers sometimes use faith as an umbrella term? Hebrews 11 provides many examples of activities that can be summarised by faith. For instance, faith caused Moses and the Israelites to put blood on the door posts saving the firstborn children from God’s judgment. Faith also caused the children of Israel to pass through the Red Sea on dry land and caused the walls of Jericho to fall down. Because all these actions were undergirded by faith, could you not rightly say that Israel’s firstborns were saved by faith? Could you not also say that the children of Israel were saved from Egypt by faith without mentioning walking through the Red Sea? Could you not say that the walls of Jericho fell down by faith without mentioning any of the other activities involved – like walking around the wall for seven days and the blowing of trumpets? Of course you can!
When it comes to repentance, confession and baptism, all these activities are worthless without faith. Faith undergirds all of these behaviours. Romans 10:11 says, ‘As the Scripture says, “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Before you say baptism isn’t mentioned in this passage, note that in Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, baptism is connected to calling on the name of the Lord). This passage reveals that faith leads to calling on the name of the Lord. There is no calling on the name of the Lord without faith. There is also no genuine repentance without faith. I mean, why would you repent? There is no confessing Jesus as Lord without faith. Also, in Colossians 2:12, Paul implies that baptism is an expression of faith in the power of God. Paul writes, “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.” Also see Galatians 3:26-29. You might say that baptism is worthless without faith.
Faith undergirding and working with repentance, confession and baptism allow us to respond to the gospel and benefit from the saving power of Christ. Since this is the case, sometimes the word faith/belief is an appropriate way to summarise the entire human response to the gospel.
So, to dismiss baptism as essential to salvation because it is not mentioned in various verses is a mistake and dismal way to read scripture. Rather than discounting any aspect or activity done in relation to salvation we should see them as all important and necessary.
Side note: James 2:14-25 describes Biblical faith as made complete by deeds/actions and faith working with deeds (verses 17 & v22). Likewise, in Romans 1:5 & 16:26, Paul speaks of obedience that comes from faith. Therefore, it makes sense that baptism falls under the type of activity that completes our faith in Jesus.
2. The Thief on the cross.
Whenever the essentiality of baptism is discussed, invariably those arguing against the salvific purpose of baptism bring up the thief on the cross and how Jesus saved him without baptism (Luke 23:35-42). Firstly, Jesus is Lord and the Son of God. So, of course, if He saves someone without baptism, He is totally free to do that without input from me. There are also several other times He forgave people for their sins without requiring baptism (Matthew 9:2-8, Luke 7:48, Mark 2:5). But my question is, when did Jesus give the command for people to be baptised to become a Christian and to enjoy forgiveness of sins? If you read Matthew 28:16-20, you will see that Jesus didn’t command baptism for all until after His resurrection and, therefore, after the death of the thief on the cross. And if you read Acts 2:38, you can see that it wasn’t taught as a response to the gospel until Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the first gospel message (Acts 2:38). If that is the case, should we ignore this command because Jesus didn’t require the thief on the cross to be baptised? If you do, you do so at the risk of being disobedient to the first command Jesus gave under the New Covenant.
On a side note, when someone dies, their Will usually isn’t enacted on the same day. It is generally read and empowered at a set time later. The Old Covenant ended on the day Jesus died, but His New Covenant or Will wasn’t empowered and enacted until Acts 2.
3. What about those in positions medically or otherwise who cannot be baptised?
First, let me suggest that you not wait to be baptised until you are in a position where baptism is difficult or impossible. If you have the opportunity, like the Ethiopian Eunuch or the other examples of conversion in Acts, do it straight away (Acts 8:36). Secondly, can we not trust God’s power? If someone truly believes and wants to be baptised, God, in His providence, can provide the way. That said, perhaps some circumstances do prevent people from being baptised. In these situations, I trust God’s judgment and grace. God is not unfair and will judge people on what they can do, not what they can’t. If God makes exceptions, He is within His right to do so. That is between God and those individuals. However, I find that those asking such hypothetical questions ignore the fact that they aren’t in these exceptional circumstances and can readily obey God within the same hour or day.
Some see the truth about baptism but hold off or look for exceptions because they feel that by embracing the essentiality of baptism, they are condemning friends and family members who may have passed on already while not being appropriately baptised. These are family and friends who believed in the gospel story and lived a Christian life but didn’t understand baptism rightly. My response is similar to the situation above. God is the judge, and He is a good judge. He will judge them fairly and rightly. However, in addition, I usually say to those who bring this up, “You know, they may very well have a good excuse for not understanding baptism and doing it for the right reasons. However, what excuse do you have?” James 4:17 says, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
4. Works do not save us, and since baptism is a work, it cannot be essential to salvation.
Who says that baptism is a work? The Bible never describes baptism as a work. Yes, it is a spiritual activity, but it is hardly something that one can boast about or claim as a work of merit. If you want to get technical, the Greek in Acts 2:38 describes baptism as a passive act. It is something done to you rather than something that you do. Praying Jesus into your heart, which has no Biblical merit, is more of work than baptism.
Even if we reason that baptism is an act or work, what type is it? If you compare works/deeds in Romans to James, you have to conclude that Paul and James are speaking about two different things. Otherwise, they are clearly contradicting each other. However, perhaps Paul is describing a type of work where one trusts in his own ability to be right with God and James describes the kind of work that flows from trusting in God. If this is the case, why wouldn’t baptism be an act that flows from faith and demonstrates trust in God? Interestingly, Paul speaks of baptism as faith in Galatians 3:26-27.
5. John 3:5 is not a reference to the water in baptism but either physical birth or spiritual cleansing.
Firstly, water and Spirit are connected all the way back to Genesis 1:2. Right at the beginning of creation, water and Spirit were necessary for life. So it makes sense that water and Spirit are also required for new creation (new spiritual birth). That is also supported by Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:4-7.
Secondly, directly after Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus and in the same passage, we find Jesus and John the Baptist baptising in water (John 3:22-30). Baptism was as crucial before the cross as after it. Admittedly, it was done looking forward to the cross, whereas Christian baptism is based on what Jesus achieved on the cross. Luke 7:30 highlights the seriousness of rejecting John’s baptism – perhaps Nicodemus, a Pharisee, had not been baptised either.
Thirdly, many ancient Christian writers and many throughout the years have understood this passage to be referring to water baptism. Bercot (1999) reveals, ‘Through the years I was able to correct others who mistakenly thought that this passage (John 3:5) refers to water baptism. I felt very knowledgeable to be able to explain the “correct” view. So it took the wind out of my sails when I discovered that the early Christians universally understood Jesus’ words to refer to water baptism’ (Loc. 1434).
Ferguson states that “Despite the overwhelming historical and majority contemporary consensus, there have been insistent efforts to remove John 3:5 from the dossier of baptismal texts” (p.143)
William Wall (as far as I know, not a relative), in his book, The History of Infant Baptism (Vol 2), reveals that after reviewing ancient Christian writings, their understanding of John 3:5 was that it refers to baptism. He goes on to state that “I believe that Calvin (John Calvin) was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives another interpretation, which he confesses to be new” (loc. 2492-2493).
6. In Acts 2:38, the grammar connects repentance with forgiveness and merely associates Baptism with these.
In a desperate attempt to disconnect baptism from being essential to salvation, many turn to the Greek in Acts 2:38. They point out that repentance is parsed as a 2nd person, plural, active verb. In contrast, baptism is 3rd person, singular and passive. Of course, this is true but does it mean what they think it means? They believe this makes repentance the main action linked to forgiveness of sins and baptism more as a secondary result. In other words, “repent, and you will receive forgiveness of sins, and then be baptised to reflect that forgiveness”. However, Peter says to repent AND be baptised for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it is more natural to read repentance and baptism as going together to obtain forgiveness of sins. Also, the change from 2nd person plural to 3rd person singular actually emphasises the importance of baptism. Ferguson (2009) states that this arrangement of second-person plural to third-person singular “is common in the Septuagint and early Christian literature and serves to individualise and make emphatic the need for each individual to do what is commanded” (p.169). I imagine a parent understands this quote well when they say to their children, “All of you come inside, and every one of you, wash up for dinner”. By saying, “every one of you”, a parent emphasises that not one child should think they can skip washing their hands. To do so is to miss out on dinner. Peter means it in the same sense when he says, “Repent, and each of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.” He emphasises that everyone needs to be baptised, including “all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Another way that some will try to diminish the salvific purpose of baptism is by explaining the word “for” from the Greek word” eis” to mean “because of”. In other words, Peter says, “repent, and each of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins are forgiven”. Interestingly, no actual translation, even though arranged by many Greek scholars, has translated “for” as “because of” in Acts 2:38. In addition, would anyone argue that Jesus poured out his blood on the cross because forgiveness of sins had already been achieved? In Matthew 26:28, Jesus says the fruit of the vine represents His blood. And regarding His blood, He says it is the “blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. This expression “for the forgiveness of sins” is precisely the same in Greek as in Acts 2:38.
7. Paul didn’t baptise many people, so he obviously didn’t think it was essential (1 Corinthians 1:14-16).
I have to say that this is the most ridiculous argument against the essentiality of baptism. Firstly, Paul is not saying that he rarely taught on baptism or that he didn’t think it was necessary. He obviously did. In fact, he taught more about baptism in the New Testament than just about anyone. Look at Acts 16:15, 33, Acts 18:9, Acts 19:3-5, Romans 6:1-7, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5 and Colossians 2:11-12. Also, Paul was himself baptised (Acts 22:16).
Paul’s point is not that he thought baptism wasn’t an essential part of salvation but that he didn’t physically do the baptising. And he is thankful that he didn’t baptise many at Corinth because the Corinthians, in their immaturity, would have used this to say they were better than others. That is why Paul says, “I am thankful that I did not baptise any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptised into my name.” Paul’s main priority was to preach the gospel, not to physically get in the water and baptise people (1 Corinthians 1:17). That doesn’t mean he didn’t teach and command it. I remember teaching two people that I met on the street about the need to be baptised. Eventually, after further study, they were baptised but not by me. Instead, it was a friend who was with me who did the baptising. It was probably Paul’s companions who baptised those who responded to Paul’s gospel preaching.
Also, which one of the Corinthians hadn’t been baptised by someone? They all had, which is why Paul makes his comments.
In John 3:22-26, we read that Jesus was baptising. In John 4:1-2 we learn that it actually wasn’t Jesus doing the physical act of baptising, but it was his disciples. That doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t teach or command baptism. He obviously did! If Jesus were against baptism, he would have told his disciples not to do it. Instead, we can imply that Jesus was teaching the need for baptism but was not physically doing baptising.
So to argue against the essentiality of baptism because Paul didn’t physically get into the water to administer it shows a failure to read the context and demonstrates a biased interpretation of scripture.
Final Thoughts:
I honestly don’t understand why people find it so difficult to get their minds around the need to be baptised for the forgiveness of sins. It isn’t a work of merit. Nor are we suggesting that there is any power in the water. However, it is an expression and demonstration of faith. It weds you to the gospel and allows you to participate spiritually in the death, burial and resurrection. It is a simple act but profound in all sorts of ways. So, let me say to you what Ananias said to Paul, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”
Side note: Upon experiencing the bright light of Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul called Jesus Lord, obviously believed in him and spent three days praying and fasting – signs of repentance. Yet why was it not until he was baptised that he was said to have his sins washed away? (Acts 22:16)
References.
Bercot, D. W., (1999). Will the real heretics please stand up. (3rd ed.). Scroll Publishing Company.
Ferguson, E. (2009). Baptism in the early church: History, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wall, W. (1870). The history of infant baptism. (Vol 2). HardPress.
