The Narrow Path Ministries

What are your thoughts on baptism? Is it required? What is it for? When should you get baptized?

Ryan.

My understanding is that it's the first act of obedience to God and a public testimony of one's committment to Christ and it symbolically represents death of the old life and resurrection. Is it necessary,yes if the opportunity is available. The thief on the cross had no opportunity but that's the exception.

It is most puzzling to hear that the purpose of baptism is testimony, as is rather commonly asserted today. I do not believe there is even one verse of scripture that would support this idea. Even more telling is the fact that no where in any conversion narrative in the Book of Acts does anyone behave as though that is the purpose - no effort to gather witnesses but done rather expeditiously.

Consider 1 Peter 3:21 where Peter tells us what baptism is. He informs us it is a vertical action directed to God, rather than a horizontal action toward man. The word he used is eperotema, a word the Greeks used in making contracts. See also Acts 22:18 where it is associated with "calling upon the name of the Lord".

We do baptism an injustice when it is reduced to a mere act of obedience. Participating in communion and singing praises are acts of obedience also but that is not their purpose.

Good point about 1 Peter 3:21 Homer. But if it's not merely an act of obedience, then what is it? It surely doesn't seem to me that it could be efficacious toward salvation since that would be a work...wouldn't it?

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...
Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...

If baptism is unnecessary, why would Mark add "and is baptized"?
In answer to those who were cut to the heart (convicted) and who asked what they should do, Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "Acts 2:38
Why would he add "and be baptized" if it were unnecessary.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The early Christians understood "born of water" as a reference to baptism.
Going down into the water is symolic of death. Coming up out of the water is symbolic of resurrection. What is called "baptism" may have no effect beyond getting wet. But, in a true baptism, what is symbolized outwardly actually takes place inwardly. As one goes under the water, he actually dies to self. When he emerges from the water, he actually comes alive to a new life in Christ.

There may be circumstances in which a person cannot be baptized, but nevertheless repents and submits. This was the case with the thief on the cross. I believe God understands the intent, and regards it in the same way as he would have if it had been actually carried out.

Yes, baptism is a "work", if by "work" one means something that someone does. If that is what is meant by "work", then believing is also a work. So is repenting and submitting. If we do not do anything at all, do not respond to the gospel, we will not be saved. God will not sovereignly save us without our co-operation.

Paul spoke not of works per se, but of "works of the law", when he stated that these were of no avail. One cannot be saved by self-effort. But baptism is not self-effort. Baptism is what Christ requires of us.

The same Paul who said these things about the works of the law also had this to say about works in general:

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. Romans 2:6-11

To suggest that baptism is not efficacious for salvation is not the same thing as saying it is "unnecessary." Obedience to Christ is not optional, nor unnecessary.

I think that, if we are speaking of salvation as the whole project of God's redeeming every aspect of our lives and, ultimately, the whole creation, then it is fair to say that every act of obedience is necessary to the advancing of that goal, and every disobedience resists it. In this sense, baptism (and all other commanded things) is an essential part of the greater "salvation."

However, when most people ask if baptism is necessary for "salvation," they are usually thinking only of the initial part of salvation—i.e. justification and regeneration. What they usually mean is, "Does one have to be baptized in order to get to heaven?"

Now, granted, this is a rather truncated view of what the Bible means by "salvation." Yet, if this is the question being asked, I do not believe that the Bible presents water baptism as a condition of justification, nor does its identification with regeneration seem at all obvious to me.

Of course, since there is much more to salvation than mere justification and getting a "ticket to heaven," there are many verses that, being informed by a concern for that more comprehensive salvation, speak of the need to be baptized.

However, the thing that justifies a man, qualifying him to live in eternity with God, must be some universal factor shared by all who end up in heaven. I expect to see Abraham, Moses, David, and the thief on the cross in heaven, though none of them were baptized in water. What they (and we) all have in common—that common condition for justification unto life—is faith.

A man who has faith of the sort that can save him, also has an in-born desire to be obedient to God. That is why a true Christian can be recognized by his works (James 2:18).

A properly-instructed believer will be promptly baptized, and will follow the teachings of Jesus in his daily conduct. A poorly-instructed believer will have the same desire to be obedient, but may be lacking in his awareness of what things have been commanded, or may lack opportunity. If he has never heard about Christ's command to be baptized, a sincere believer may be found to lack this qualification on the day of judgment. However, it will be his faith, and the obedience to the known will of God inspired by that faith, that distinguishes him as one of God's children (Gal.5:6).

God has bigger plans for His children than that they simply die and go to heaven. His desire is that they be holy (Eph.1:4) and zealous for good works (Tit.2:14), that they live in all things for His glory (Eph.1:12, 14/1 Cor.10:31) and that they be conformed into the image of Christ (Rom.8:29). The realization of these objectives requires that faith be manifested in an obedient life, in general, and in baptism, in particular.

I know that many have historically understood the phrase "born of water" (John 3:5) as a reference to water baptism, but I have never understood why they have interpreted it that way. At least two other (better) interpretations of the phrase are possible, and I wonder why Jesus would expect Nicodemus, in a conversation about being "born", to somehow make the connection between the word "born" and the word "baptized"—perhaps the Jews made such an association in their baptizing of proselytes? I don't know.

In any case, it would seem inconsistent for Jesus to say that a man had to be baptized in water to enter the kingdom of God, and then to announce to the thief on the cross that he would share in that inheritance without being baptized.

I also never understood why Paul, if he believed baptism to be essential to a man's rebirth, could, as one passionate about the salvation of souls, say, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor.1:17). Paul certainly believed in the importance of baptism, but he seemed to relegate it to a much lesser status than hearing and believing the Word in prioritizing his calling.

The thief on the cross was not baptized, however, according to Romans 6:3-4 (which says "3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.") it says the act of baptism is partaking in the death and resurrection of Jesus, which when Jesus and the prisoner were on the cross hadn't happened yet.

As for 1 Cor 1:17, Paul was not sent to baptize but to preach because back then when the early church was growing at an explosive rate whoever had the task of baptizing people would basically do it full time (imagine baptizing three thousand people! (Acts 2:41) that would be a lot!).

Personally, I believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. The last thing that Jesus said to his disciples before to go into heaven is "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20) Peter, when asked what they must do because they were cut to the heart he said "Repent and be baptized, 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. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:38-39) And also after Paul saw the blinding light and told to go to Damascus he did not eat for the three days.Once he got there and did finally receive his sight back, the first thing he did was get baptized, then ate some food to regain his strength (Acts 9:1-19).

Ryan.

I am glad, Steve, that you see the wider scope of salvation, beyond the initial repentance, and becoming a disciple.

I believe that baptism is both necessary, and is part of that initial step.
No fair pointing out that Abraham, Moses, and David were not baptized. Under the new order of the Kingdom of God, baptism was introduced and was the "clincher", or perhaps the contract, that one had repented, submitted, and entered the Kingdom.

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptizer). Since that time the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is pressing into it.


As for faith, there is more than one order of faith. The author of Hebrews state that one cannot come to God unless one believes that He is, and is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. So in that sense, faith is perhaps the first step.

Then comes repentance, submission and baptism.

Then comes the deeper faith by which the disciple lives. Several scriptures indicate faith is necessary to appropriate the enabling grace of Christ, made available by His death.

True, Paul stated that he wasn't sent to baptize but to proclaim the gospel. That fact, however, doesn't show that he didn't consider baptism necessary in the initial step into the kingdom. Probably his helpers did the baptizing. It was the same with Jesus. "Jesus baptized more disciples than John". Then the writer hastes to add, "Jesus Himself did not baptize --- but His disciples."

Baptism will not in itself regenerate anyone. But when one submits to Christ in baptism, he is regenerated.

Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.

"When we were baptized into Christ we were baptized into His death."
What does this mean? Does it not mean that we died to our self life in our baptism? And that because Jesus died, He was right there with us in our baptism, enabling us to die, and to come alive regenerated?

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death" Does the statement not refer to our death to self? When did that happen? "through baptism".

"that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" Was not this the very purpose of Christ's death and resurrection? That we might walk in newness of life? So when we come up out of the baptismal waters, inwardly, we are coming up out of death, and living in "newness of life".

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Some think that when Jesus died over 2000 years ago, we, in some mystical manner died. But is that what the passage is saying? Is it not saying (in its context) that when were were baptized we died with Christ? that the old person was crucified with Him and that ALL things became new? Is that not the moment of our regeneration?

I find myself in complete agreement with what Paidion and Ryan have said. I do not believe in baptismal regeneration in the sense some do - apart from the "act of faith", which it is, there is no efficacy in it. To me it is normatively the occasion of our entrance into the Body of Christ. It is important to note that in Jesus' commission a literal translation is "baptizing them into (eis) the name...". The greek word eis is a preposition indicating movement from one place into another or toward another.

Paidion's point about the belief of the early church carries much weight. Dr. Everett Ferguson, an early church historian of considerable renown (note some of his books listed @ Amazon), stated in his book "Early Christians Speak" that if baptism is not for the remission of sins, then the entire church had gone wrong within 50 years of the apostles. And this regarding one of the foundational doctrines (Hebrews 6:1) of the church! How can we explain their failure to "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you"? And this to their immediate followers!

Re John 3:5 it is not surprising that Jesus would inform Nicodemus that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Henry Alford (Greek New Testament) comments: "The idea of a new birth was by no means alien from the Rabbinical views. They described a proselyte when baptized as 'like an infant just born' ". Also consider that Nicodemus had no doubt refused to be baptized by John the Baptist, Luke 7:30. (It should be noted that the NASB translation of Matt 3:7 is poor where it is said the Pharisees were coming to John for baptism; literally it translates "they were coming to where John was baptizing", no doubt from the context to check out what was going on.)

Paul's statement that he delegated baptism carries little weight. As Paidion pointed out, so did Jesus. Where it does carry weight is in rebutal to the belief that an ordained person must be the baptizer. In the narratives of Peter's visit to the household of Cornelius (read both), we find him delegating baptism to those described as no more than "some disciples". No doudt baptizing was routinely delegated, much as "waiting on tables". The chief actor in baptism is God, next the convert, and last the baptizer.

In consideration of Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, some, most notably Baptist (love them Baptists, last count I had seven Baptist pastors among my cousins!), have asserted that for (eis) should be translated "because of". According to a lengthy article in the appendix of the NIV Theological Dictionary on the preposition eis, a causative meaning has never been established.

It is then asserted that Peter stated the conditions differently in his sermon in Acts 3:19. A closer examination will, I believe, reveal him to be saying the same thing in different words. "Repent and be converted (NKJV) seems at first glance to be different but Dr. Wall, author of "The History of Infant Baptism", testified that he had examined the entire writings of the early church (first four centuries as I recall) and found the "baptized" and "converted" were used synonymously.

It is stange that Jews and Muslims place more importance on Christian baptism than many Christians do. The Jews act as though one of theirs who is baptized has died and the Muslims go them one better in killing the convert if they can.

As good and persuasive as these arguments appear, I remain unconvinced that baptism in water is efficacious for regeneration. I will have to tell you why tomorrow, since it is time for me to go to bed.

My position is different than yours only in theory, not in practice. I believe that a true believer is regenerated at conversion, and will be baptized, given adequate opportunity. You believe he is regenerated at baptism, unless he has no opportunity to be baptized. In the latter case, I wonder what event gives him access to salvation?

In any case, we agree that regenerated people will always be baptized, if they have had the opportunity. Therefore, our preaching to sinners and practice toward converts will be the same, will it not? All that differs is the theological explanations.