Discussions about whether baptism is necessary for salvation happen often enough that I feel it necessary to limit how often they occur. This file is an attempt to summarize the issues. The following postings from David Wagner is a good introduction: From: math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) Subject: Re: Baptism Organization: University of Houston Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , servant@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) writes: > > Anyone have any insights on this interpretation of > John 3:5, or any other interpretations? Put very simply, Jesus was talking about becoming a Christian (although the word 'Christian' did not yet exist). In Ephesians 2:1 Paul described the unbeliever as 'dead in transgressions and sins.' When a person comes to faith in Christ, it is described this way: "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved."--Ephesians 2:5 This is what it means to be 'born again.' We pass from spiritual death to spiritual life. It is not something that we can take credit for--scripture consistently credits God for this miracle of 'new life in Christ.' Another good reference is Colossians 2:11-15: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 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. "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." Here we see that in baptism, the sinful nature is put to death ('buried') and new life is begun. We know from experience, and from scripture (Romans 7), that the sinful nature is not buried instantaneously, but that this is a lifelong process, which we call 'sanctification'. It is also interesting to note that the new life in Christ is described as a resurrection. I think this is the resurrection that is meant by the 'first resurrection' described in Revelation 20:5, although millenialists will disagree with me. Baptism is closely connected with conversion. Christ commanded the church to make disciples by baptizing and teaching (Matthew 28:19,20). In John 3:5,6 Jesus indicated that all people need to receive this 'new life' in order to be saved. His words 'Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit,' indicate that the need for 'rebirth' begins with birth itself (or we might even say 'conception'). For more references on this see Psalm 51:5, Genesis 8:21. This helps to explain why we baptize infants--but that is a slightly different topic for discussion. John 3:5 seems to indicate that Baptism is a requirement for salvation. I agree that any Christian will seek to do what his Lord has commanded, but it is very important to avoid legalism in this matter. Baptism is described in Scripture as God's work, not ours (see the Colossians passage above). We don't earn salvation by submitting to Baptism, but rather God through the power of the Gospel, and through Baptism, gives us salvation. Furthermore, if we come to faith but die without an opportunity to be baptized, we are still assured of salvation--as was the malefactor on the cross (Luke 32:40-43). Catholics call this a 'baptism of intention' (as I have learned on this net), but IMHO this is slipping into legalism. I think perhaps the moderator should save this as an answer to a FAQ. (I do seem to be repeating myself on this subject regularly). David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "He that believes and is baptized Shall see the Lord's salvation; Baptized into the death of Christ, He is a new creation. Thro' Christ's redemption he shall stand Among the glorious heav'nly band Of ev'ry tribe and nation." --Enher som tror og bliver doebt, v. 1 --Thomas Kingo, 1689 --from "The Lutheran Hymnal", #301. I think just about everyone agrees with what David says. Aside from infant baptism, which I deal with separately, the debates seem to be of two kinds: 1) a practical one: what do we say about exceptional cases such as someone who converts but is killed before they can be baptized. The most obvious response seems to be the traditional Catholic one. They recognize "baptism of intent" and also "baptism of blood", where someone dies for the faith before having a chance to be baptized. I have never understood the arguments against this. They seem to consist simply of pointing to the requirements expressed in passages like John 3:5. But unless we envision God as some sort of heavenly bureacrat, it seems that he would be willing to make allowances. The traditional Catholic position could actually justify a "hardline" position. They believe that baptism is a sacrament. The act actually accomplishes something (through God's grace, of course -- they don't believe in magic): a change in the soul. But they accept baptism of intent. Protestants generally reject the Catholic concept of sacrament as an act that actually causes metaphysical effects. To them this looks a bit too close to magic. Here's an example of the sort of issue that can come up. I wish I had saved the posting, but I forgot to. However one of our posters claimed to have gotten this directly from a pastor who was involved. A young man converted to Christianity, of one of the groups that believes baptism is absolutely required for salvation. He was in an automobile accident before he could be baptized. He ended up in intensive care. The group involved believe only baptism by immersion was satisfactory. This was impossible to carry out in insensive care. He died without being baptized, apparently believing that he was going to go to hell. I find the concept of God that is behind this hard to understand. 2) a theoretical one, having to do with faith and works. The groups that say baptism is not necessary for salvation seem to be trying to avoid making our salvation contingent on a work. They do not deny that baptism is commanded by Christ. They are just trying to maintain a consistent position that our salvation depends entirely on God's grace, and that no work we can do could merit it. Thus instead of saying that baptism is strictly a precondition, it's more common to say that it's a required consequence. Like works, if you don't do something that is so clearly mandated by Christ (aside from really unusual conditions), we have to ask whether you could possibly have accepted Christ as Lord. Whether you describe the act as necessary for salvation or as a mandatory consequence, this does not seem to indicate much of a difference in understanding baptism. Rather it seems to indicate more a difference in how we choose terminology, in order to be consistent with other theological ideas.