Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: pjr12345

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.).

If 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?

Paul never made 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. That is difficult to understand if 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 baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. 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). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.

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).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And 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. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let’s look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis “because of,” or “on the basis of,” instead of “for.” It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark’s gospel. We can’t discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word “baptism” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means “to immerse.” Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ’s death and resurrection through “an appeal to God for a good conscience,” or repentance.

I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).

In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” It is best to connect the phrase “wash away your sins” with “calling on His name.” If we connect it with “be baptized,” the Greek participle epikalesamenos (”calling”) would have no antecedent. Paul’s sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.


4 posted on 06/04/2007 11:28:18 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: LiteKeeper
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

These, your very first two sentences, contradict each other. If "no external act is necessary for salvation" and assuming you agree that man has free will, then salvation "by divine grace through faith alone" requires that one have faith. Using this concept of faith, faith must equal belief. And we know from Jesus that "belief" is a work (John 6:29).

Using the definition of faith provided in Hebrews 11:1,

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

One must "accept" the "substance", and "believe" the "evidence" in order to have faith. Having faith itself requires a work, if one accepts a popular (ear-tickling) view on the topic.

In order for man to not have a "work" in his own salvation, man cannot have free will.

6 posted on 06/04/2007 11:37:28 AM PDT by pjr12345 (I'm a Christian Conservative Republican, NOT a Republican Conservative Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: LiteKeeper
So many verses to explain away... maybe it might be better to rethink your doctrine?

If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture.

This is a pre-supposition that can only prejudice one's reading of Scripture. One cannot pick up walnuts when one's sack is filled with pecans.

Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations.

Paul does discuss baptism a doctrinal theme in Romans 6, and even acknowledges having baptized people. And just because Paul does not believe his personal mission was to baptize does not mean that others with him did not perform the task.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism.

The Apostles may or may not have been baptized (Jesus was.) However, we have no way of knowing. Also, might their special relationship with the Lord, as confirmed at Pentecost, have played a role? They certainly had special authority due to this? Also, weren't they the ones who received the Great Commission? It said that they should baptize others, not each other. Hmm.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized.

Why don't you actually READ my post. You may be enlightened about this topic.

9 posted on 06/04/2007 11:56:59 AM PDT by pjr12345 (I'm a Christian Conservative Republican, NOT a Republican Conservative Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: LiteKeeper
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation Its quite clear that Jesus taught otherwise

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

94 posted on 06/05/2007 4:54:15 AM PDT by bremenboy (Just Because I Am Born Again Doesn't Mean I was Born Again Yesterday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: LiteKeeper; pjr12345
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark’s gospel. We can’t discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage

You are depending on too many Textual scholars. Think about it God is not mocked. Lets see what happens if we accept these Great Scholars OR idiots as I call them. Do you really in all honesty and sincerity believe that the great book of faith the Gospel of Mark would end with

Mar 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Do you believe this or are you just grasping at straws?

96 posted on 06/05/2007 5:36:25 AM PDT by bremenboy (Just Because I Am Born Again Doesn't Mean I was Born Again Yesterday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson