Baptism
Summary:
There are 91 verses in the NASB Bible version that talk about various forms of baptism. The word just means immersion and you can be baptized in the Spirit, in water, surviving the flood or red sea crossing, or even baptized into literal death (Mark 10:38-39). Water baptism has the symbology of being crucified with Jesus, dying to sin and raising from the dead, with a new life that is cleansed from sin to live for God. So everyone agrees that there is at least some symbolism involved. But some people take around 7 of the verses, that talk about forgiveness of sin and baptism in the same verse, very literal and say that baptism is actually the point that God saves you and forgives you of sin. (Other churches say it cleanses you of your “original sin”, leading them to practice infant baptism to make sure they’re saved right away.) They then try to “fit” this same thought into many of the remaining verses of baptism. But I don’t think this holds water (pun intended). If you read my article on denominations, you’ll see that there are so many denominations, and even cults, out there which all have a handful of Bible verses they use to show they have the best unique interpretation of scripture. It’s sad that these are hardly ever over clearly defined topics in the Bible, like love, humility, etc (see a list of serious issues here), which we need to be strongly teaching. In the denomination article I go over some of these major topics. In the case of these verses on baptism, I think they are just show that baptism is part of our overall lifelong process of salvation. In other words, it’s a step of obedience, like many other steps we take. And baptism can happen together with that initial faith and coming to God if the conditions are right (e.g. you have water nearby). There’s no need to delay then. But when this can’t be done right away then you should do it as soon as you can, e.g. people in prison. When people in prison come broken to God in repentance, God wouldn’t ask them to wait until they can arrange a baptism before He saves them. There have also been martyrs who have turned to Christ and immediately died for their faith before they could be baptized. Surely no one would believe that these martyrs went to hell. When you don’t have the chance to obey, you are not disobeying. This also easily explains the thief on the cross going to heaven with Jesus. Being saved by faith without any works is an important theme that is carefully and fervently guarded in the Bible in many places. But following up with action is just as clearly taught, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Cornelius clearly got the gift of the Holy Spirit, clearly indicating salvation, before baptism. This isn’t being drawn or convicted by the Spirit, as He does all lost people. But this is the actual filling of the Sprit, complete with the gift of tongues. Peter said it was the same filling they got at Pentecost. And at the Jerusalem Council, Peter cites this filling to show that God saved the Gentiles by faith in this verse:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” Acts 15:7-11
To clarify this discussion, the five beliefs on water baptism could be grouped as follows, and I advocate #3.
- Groups that don’t practice it
- Practice it optionally as symbolism
- Believe it’s required obedience as soon as possible (“baptismal necessity”)
- Believe it’s actually when you get saved or forgiven of original sin (“baptismal justification” or “baptismal regeneration”)
- Claims to be the only true Church based on methods or interpretations on baptism.
I believe we are saved by our faith and our confession as Romans 10:8-13 (below) clearly says. The context of this chapter is clearly about the simplicity and ease of salvation without any significant effort on our part. It contrasts the old covenant of the Law with the new covenant of faith. Romans 8:6, just before this section, clearly says this is “the righteousness based on faith.” It goes along with Romans 1:16, 17. This makes perfect sense when we see how loving God is and how much he wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4 and many more verses here). As we see in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), He runs to meet the repentant son. So it makes sense that God would forgive people when they have faith in Him and take that first sincere step towards him, not make them wait until they can be baptized, which sometimes takes at least a few days to make arrangements. And there’s no reason to make them wait. Can you imagine a man being brought to the conviction of sin and belief in Jesus, coming in prayer to God with a repentant humble heart asking God’s forgiveness, and God telling him that if he can arrange a baptism He will save him. What’s worse is that several churches each believe they are the only ones who can do this baptism, so you sure can’t even go to God directly. Here’s the passage in Romans 10:
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:8-13
Now I’m very familiar with how the “faith alone” people have taken verses like this too far and say that’s all they ever have to do, and then they continue to live in sin. So I do understand that the Bible is clear that this is a starting point, and many other things are required later as you follow in obedience with God’s help in a relationship. There are other verses that make that clear (article here). But there are these “faith alone” verses, like this Romans 10, that are very clear that at this point of faith and confession you are saved (obviously if you are sincere with this repentant heart and it’s not just empty lip service). This specific first step is called many things, but I’ll just call it “initial justification” or “initial salvation.” Note that “salvation” and “justification” are both generic Greek words, not specifically defined in the Bible, and the New Testament does use them interchangeably. And the Bible, being written in the common layman’s vernacular and not a theological or legal document, doesn’t use terms like “initial justification.” You have to look at context to figure it out in light of other scriptures. So this causes a lot of the confusion in this baptism topic because we don’t know if verses are talking about this initial salvation or the whole lifelong process of salvation. So, for example, when a verse says you have to “be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God” (a popular verse that we’ll talk about) I think it’s just referring to a couple steps in the lifelong salvation process, not initial salvation. This makes the difference in this verse between teaching initial salvation at baptism, vs initial salvation by faith and then following in obedience with baptism. You can’t tell by that verse alone. I’ll talk about this more later.
That’s how looking at all the Bible as a whole makes it easy to understand in spite of it being unclear in areas like this. This is especially true with important matters of sin. They are always clear. E.g. when you look at verses that say you’ll be saved by faith, you can’t make this say that’s all you have to ever do and then live in sin, because there are so many verses that make it clear you can’t do that. So you know from those verses that you have to go back and look at those faith verses and see that those verses mean initially saved by faith, even though this “initially” is not specified. That makes both sets of verses fit. That’s why Romans 10 and other places talk about the concept of salvation by faith alone (though it doesn’t use those exact words) and James 2 turns around and clearly and specifically says you are NOT saved by faith alone. Ephesians 2:8-10 talk about faith alone and works in the same passage. Paul taught both. The “faith alone” verses like Romans 10 and Ephesians 2:8-9 are talking about initial salvation. The others like James 2 and Ephesians 2:10 are talking about the lifelong process of salvation that you allow God to lead you in. So they are not in conflict, because in context they are talking about different aspects of the salvation process. You always have to take context into account. And it’s so obvious to a sincere conscience that you can’t live in sin. So the Bible is easy to understand when you look at all of it in context, with a sincere heart, and common sense.
And as a side note I do want to point out that you’re not working your way to heaven but just staying in relationship with God as He leads you there. He gives you the joy to obey Him. This is the “living faith” that James 2 talks about. So, this “initial justification” is where we begin a new life with God as our loving father and Lord, when we come to Him in this simple step. Then He starts to work on us to obey Him in a lifelong process of spiritual maturity. This growing process is where the Bible says many things are required, including baptism – they are required later like discussed in James ch 2. (I have a whole article on this topic of required obedience after initial justification). But you can’t make any of these things, like baptism, required for initial justification or you’ll be denying the faith alone verses like Romans 10. It just doesn’t fit into this passage; it says salvation is “near you, it is in your mouth and in your heart”. The process of baptism, which can be difficult in some circumstances, and impossible in others, just doesn’t fit in that verse. It is certainly not “in your mouth and in your heart.” And unlike how Romans 10 and James 2 don’t conflict with each other because they are talking about different aspects of salvation (initial vs lifelong), adding baptism to initial salvation does conflict with this “in your heart” salvation because it is talking about the same aspect of initial salvation in ways that are not compatible.
The doctrine where you believe initial justification comes specifically at baptism (item 4 on the list above) is sometimes called “baptismal justification”, though those who believe it take issue with that term because they don’t think baptism itself justifies you, but that God does when you are baptized. Nevertheless we need to call it something so I’ll use that term, with their corrected understanding of what they mean. The name still fits. I believe this doctrine of “baptismal justification” comes mainly from confusing two sets of verses: 1) four verses that do indicate baptism is required (but just after justification by faith) and 2) an overly literal interpretation of the symbology of baptism in three other verses. These verses do make things confusing, as they often do with other divisive denominational topics, and I know very godly people who believe this. People I greatly respect. For you see, this is a matter of interpreting confusing verses due to the lack of defined words, not a sinful heart that wants to reinterpret the Bible so you can live in some sin like we want. Sometimes when people see a seemingly clear verse, they lock onto it as a hard immovable rock and then take other verses, that should balance it out, and do some fairly impressive reinterpretation on them. The problem, as I describe in my article on hermeneutics, is that I found about 70 verses that are seemingly clear but you actually can’t interpret them as written, as we’d all agree. There are “clear” verses (sometimes multiple verses) that support keeping the Old Testament law, eternal security, even reincarnation (see the article it’s quite interesting). However, when you look at all the Bible, the confusing verses can be clarified by clearer verses. You just can’t get the mentality of that Western legalistic society and lock onto a verse. So here are some ways of looking at baptism from other verses:
Part 1, Problems with salvation at baptism
1) We are clearly not saved by works
Is baptism a work?
Not saved by works is a very strong teaching in the Bible, so almost everyone will agree with it. (Here comes the “impressive reinterpretation”…) But some baptismal justification proponents will just say “Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do.” It’s a “passive act of faith” rather than a “meritorious work.” Now, there may be a few people who don’t know much about the Bible who would say “I hope my good works outweigh my bad works so I can go to heaven.” A person like that is actually relying on his works to get him into heaven. That’s what a “meritorious work” would refer to. But most people in the church, any church – even liberal churches, know that our works themselves absolutely can not save us. There’s not much argument there. The only question is what we have to do so God will save us, both what we do initially and afterwards. That’s the “passive act of faith” that we do expecting God to save us. And that’s where the disagreement is. The liberal church would say only believe and that’s it ever. You can even live in sin. A more conservative church would say we are saved by “faith alone” with the confession of our mouth and belief in our heart just like Romans 10 says. But this doesn’t preclude that we must continue to walk with Him in repentance as He leads us and helps us in obedience (baptism being the first step of obedience) for eventual salvation at death as Mark 13:13 and about 90 other verses say. A baptismal justification proponent would simply put baptism in the initial salvation stage – you have to be baptized before God will grant you that initial salvation. You’re lost in your sins, even after faith and repentance, until you arrange that baptism. And that clearly doesn’t fit with salvation by faith alone at all in any stage.
Similarity to circumcision
Some people will point out that baptism isn’t a work because someone else is actually baptizing you so you’re passive in it. But notice how Paul in Romans 4 preaches the difference between faith vs. works in relation to circumcision, which he strongly condemns as being used for salvation. And circumcision and baptism are actually more similar than it would first seem. They are both a physical act that you voluntarily allow someone to do to you, to allow or cause God to do something. So baptism would seem like a similar work and equally condemned. It’s the same principles.
As a side note, it’s interesting that Paul actually condemns being saved by circumcision at any time, initial salvation or lifelong salvation. This is because the Galatians were being tempted to go back to the Old Testament law system (See Galatians 5:4). I’ve actually heard some people, on the far other side of this baptism issue, say that anyone who relies on baptism to save them is equally condemned by Paul and also “cut off from Christ”, because of the similarity between baptism and circumcision. But they mis this special circumstance of going back to the law that draws the extra condemnation. And even then, it was only for those Galatians since they were being tempted to go back to the Old Testament law. Later Paul did circumcise Titus to avoid being an offense to the Jews, because that temptation wasn’t there then.
Is baptism and faith one step?
Another idea to keep baptism from being a work, is to put baptism and faith into one step. But there is clearly a step where a person believes in God, turns to him in repentance (in the heart initially since you can’t see the actions yet) and then follows on in baptism. This is true even where these are only minutes apart. There are many cases in the Bible where this does happen quickly after a mighty act of God, so it might cause confusion since they are so close together (e.g. the crowd in Acts and the Philippian jailer). And with the crowd of 3000 in Acts, each one may have made his confession right there at their baptism, as each took his turn to be baptized. That’s when the other people knew they believed and were saved and part of the church. So that’s why some verses, there in Acts especially, lump them together. But still there is a separation of when they believed and when they were baptized, it just wasn’t evident to others yet. I could even see in that event that they may have waited for their turn in baptism to actually ask God’s forgiveness so they in fact were saved at baptism. These powerful unique events and the combining of the terms in a few verses have certainly caused confusion for those who believe in baptismal justification, as we’ll look at. But they never actually say we’re saved at baptism. It only lists baptism together with salvation. And salvation at baptism doesn’t fit other scriptures so it’s clear it was never meant to actually be a doctrine. That’s where you have to be careful and consider all the scriptures and not to “lock onto” a seemingly clear verse as I mentioned earlier. As one who believes baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation, I could see myself saying “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins” if I was standing near water preaching to those interested in salvation (it was an attentive and very interested crowd after the miracle). Why not? But in doing so, I would by no means be trying to teach that as a doctrine.
A similar situation where baptism and salvation appear to be together is with children, who have always believed in God and Jesus, try to obey Him, and ask His forgiveness regularly, but at one point they officially identify with Christ in baptism. That would be a good place to make it official.
Foreshadowing of the snake lifted up
Here’s another verse supporting initial salvation by faith alone. As we know, there were many foreshadowing’s of Jesus in the Old Testament. One was in Numbers 21:8,9 where they were clearly saved from death at one point by just looking at the snake as it was lifted up. And Jesus makes a direct comparison of this to believing in Him in this verse:
14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:14-16
2) Cornelius
The salvation of Cornelius and his friends and family doesn’t fit the baptismal justification model. Cornelius was clearly a godly man who was obeying God (the text says he prayed and gave generously to the poor). He’d gathered his friends and family, and they were eagerly listening as Peter was preaching the gospel. Their hearts were right. So Peter explains that God accepts all who fear Him and do what he says, and that Jesus is the prophesied messiah and all who believe in Him will receive forgiveness of sins. A short but adequate presentation of the Gospel. Right then all the sudden they started speaking in tongues. The natural reading is they must have believed in Jesus at this point and got saved at this point. But this is a problem for the baptismal justification idea because all this happened and then they got baptized.
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:44-48
So let’s look at the “impressive reinterpretation” of baptismal regeneration proponents to explain this:
Response to reinterpretation #1: Did he receive the Spirit?
Some say that they didn’t receive the Spirit here but were just led by the Spirit, as the Spirit does in all unbelievers (John 16:8) or can even influence wicked people, like Pharoah or the High Priest prophesying the death of Jesus (John 11:49-51). But Cornelius clearly received the Spirit after believing the gospel message. And Cornelius was clearly baptized or filled with the Spirit in the same way as the apostles were (Peter says this in Acts 10:47). So it was the full spirit-filling experience. I’ll discuss this more in a minute.
Response to reinterpretation #2: Was he saved when he received the Spirit?
So some admit that yes he fully got the Holy Spirit there, but he still wasn’t saved until baptism. Can you be filled with the Spirit with an evident gift of the Spirit and not be saved? In the beginning New Testament stories, some may have received the Spirit after salvation in unique circumstances (e.g. the Spirit hadn’t been given yet) but no one received the Spirit before salvation. Jesus’ disciples were presumably baptized, and Jesus declared the 11 of them clean (John 13:10,11, John 15:3) but they didn’t get the Spirit until Acts 2. The people in Acts 8:16 were actually baptized in the name of Jesus but didn’t get the spirit until the apostles came and laid their hands on them. The people in Acts 19:1-7 were called disciples so they must have been saved, but they too didn’t get the Spirit until Paul laid his hands on them, after they were rebaptized in the name of Jesus, after learning about it. Nowadays we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so this probably covers it. So yes, there’s some confusion why these got the Spirit later, but there’s no confusion that it’s always either at or after salvation not before. So though it seems you can be saved before getting the Spirit, there is no indication whatsoever that you can receive the Spirit and not be saved. Instead, these passages below seem pretty clear that the Spirit is associated with faith and salvation.
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:13, 14
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:2-6
But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:12-15
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
I didn’t see any of these verses refuted by the baptismal justification proponents but there is one more verse that seems to also imply salvation and receiving the spirt go together but there’s a loophole that they do argue with, so I’ll discuss it later. Of course, it’s not even needed since we have these here.
Getting the Spirit then getting baptized contradicts Peter’s sermon
I just want to quickly point out that regardless of what you believe about Cornelius being saved or not when receiving the Spirit, it is still in the opposite order of what Peter said, showing that these events in Peter’s sermon are not in strict order.
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
Here in Acts 2 Peter tells people to be baptized and then they’ll get the Holy Spirit but Cornelius unquestionably received the Holy Spirit and then was baptized. Like other verses, Peter is combining two aspects of obedience and giving the overall reward. It’s clearly not a specific formula. I always like to look at both sides, so I read an article from the other side (Dave Miller, 2022 referenced below. I’m sure he’s a fine Christian though I disagree with him on this issue) and here is what I believe is his explanation of this discrepancy. First he says that since Peter in his retelling of the event in Acts 11:4 says he gave it “in order”, then it means the “account in Acts 10 is not necessarily in strict order”. But though Acts 11 is more brief and not all the events are listed, all the events that are listed are in the same order. Furthermore, the only critical events to this discussion are the filling with the Spirit and baptism which must have come in that order because the filling surprised Peter and then he baptized them. There’s no doubt about that. The order of those two events is the same in both chapters. So the whole “in order” argument is moot and a red hearing (something to distract you from the real issue). I didn’t see any good explanation for this difference of Peter’s sermon and the events with Cornelius.
Peter uses this event and their receiving the Spirit to show that the Gentiles are saved by faith
And there’s another strong indication that Cornelius’ family were actually saved at that point of being filled with the Spirit, before baptism. The Jerusalem council was deciding if the Gentiles must obey the Old Testament law. Peter uses Cornelius’ filling to show that the Gentiles are saved by faith. He cites their receiving tongues as proof that they were saved by faith at that point. His whole point is that they got saved right then without obeying the law.
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” Acts 15:6-11
I did not see any explanation of or reference to this passage in Acts 15 anywhere on the Apologetics Press web site regarding the salvation and baptism of Cornelius (they have a search tool where you can search the whole site).
So when you look at this passage in Acts 10 with the one in Acts 15, it is perfectly clear that Cornelius received the Spirit at the same time his heart was cleansed by faith and then Peter baptized him.
Response to reinterpretation #3: Was the Spirit given just to show the Jews that the Gentiles could be saved?
Another idea to defend baptismal justification is to say this filling was just proof to Peter and the Jews with him that the “Gentiles had an equal right to enter the kingdom” and so they could be saved/baptized later. But here again this doesn’t make sense. Peter had already said at the beginning of his message that he “certainly understood” this (verse below). And the six Jewish brothers with him would have listened to him and his account of the amazing vision.
Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. Acts 10:34, 35.
This filling no doubt helped confirm God’s selection of the Gentiles, but the text says nothing about their ability to be saved but that it showed that they were saved. See the passage in Acts 15 above.
Response to reinterpretation #4: Were they saved, even though the sermon was cut short?
Another explanation they give to say the Gentiles couldn’t have been saved when they received the Spirit, is that they had to hear the message Peter was going to give and the complete message was interrupted by this filling of the Holy Spirit, so they never had the opportunity to be saved. But this is not plausible either. Yes his message was interrupted, but not before he gave the essential details of Jesus, including that he was proven to be the Messiah and that we could be forgiven if we believe in him, fear him, and do what he says. It was a great message, though short. Their hearts were already right and they were ready, so it just didn’t take any more convincing. It’s the easiest evangelistic sermon of all time. Cornelius seeing the angle naturally helped. And something else that discounts this idea is that he never did finish the sermon but exclaimed that since they had the Spirt there was nothing to prevent them from being baptized. This makes perfect sense if baptism was a first step of obedience or a public declaration but doesn’t fit at all with the idea that they had to hear a longer sermon. So these counter-arguments really don’t hold water either.
One strawman argument against one of the verses that tie the Spirit to salvation
And lastly, I’ll address one last argument going back to the idea that Cornelius got the Spirit but wasn’t saved. I gave four verses above to support that the Spirit is associated with salvation. I didn’t see any of those verses addressed in the Miller article. But I did see one that it did address so I’ll mention it here in passing. John 14:15-18 seems to say only believers can get the Holy Spirit too.
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive [or take], because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. John 14:15-18
The four verses mentioned above already indicate this pretty strongly, so this verse is not even needed to make the case but if true it would certainly be a clincher that the Gentiles were saved when they got the Spirit, since it clearly says the world cannot receive the Spirit. So the Miller article points out that the word “receive” can mean “take” and that Jesus is saying the world can’t take the Sprit from the disciples when He leaves. And the word can mean that and there is surrounding context of Jesus leaving them. But that actual verse does seem to fit more that the world can’t “receive” the Spirit, since it says the world doesn’t see or know Him (the Spirit) but the disciples do. So it’s more in context of receiving the Spirit. That’s why all the translators (I quickly checked about 30 on biblehub.com) translated it with the “receive” meaning. So they have to translate this verse differently from any of these translations to help make it fit with baptismal justification. But again, it’s just one of several verses anyway so it’s not even needed.
Here are a few more points that seem to point away from baptismal justification but they are not as clear: (skip to Part 2 if you’re in a hurry)
3) Thief on the cross, and some martyrs couldn’t be baptized
This fits fine with baptism being a required obedience. If you don’t have the opportunity to obey like this, then you aren’t disobeying. This would also answer the hard question of what happens to other people who die before they are baptized, perhaps even martyred on the way to be baptized. I’ve heard there are many of these accounts of Christians being killed before they could be baptized, but the most famous is the Roman commander Aglios in the city of Sebaste in the year 320 as he, after seeing the sincerity of the Christians for several days and then seeing their sentence for being a Christian of freezing to death on a frozen lake, ran out to become one of them. This was made famous by the song 40 Brave Soldiers for Christ. The story says they were all found dead the next morning on the ice, the ones that were barely technically alive were killed. The Roman guard was never baptized. What happened to him? Did he go to heaven? And this is just one of many stories.
It seems there are only two options: One is to somehow negate their whole doctrine and say God overlooks that requirement in these cases. But that sounds exactly like what I’m saying, that’s it’s required obedience when you can do it. The second option is to say the horrific, that they weren’t saved, even these people who were martyred – gave up their life – for their faith. I actually heard a baptismal justification proponent say this horrific thing, though he focused on people who delayed baptism and were accidentally killed, but not mentioning these types of martyrs.
Thief on the cross
So they don’t have a real good answer to those martyrs, so this next point doesn’t seem too important (skip to #4 if you’re in a hurry), but specifically with the thief on the cross, to support baptismal justification there in at least that instance, they have to say this was part of the old covenant and they start the new covenant at Jesus’ resurrection. This is the only way to put the thief in the old covenant. They will use Romans 4:25 that says, ”He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” But this passage is not real clear and doesn’t even talk about the covenants. It just says He was raised for our justification. There’s more reason to think that His death would be the logical place, as he took our sins and became the Passover lamb, agreeing with Hebrews 9:16-28 that death seals a covenant. The temple curtain also dramatically split at that point too, showing and end to the OT sacrificial system and allowing direct access to the Father. And we know the thief died after Jesus so this would make his death in the new covenant, with no baptism.
Teaching the new covenant started at the start of Jesus’ ministry.
And regardless of when the new covenant actually started, it’s clear that Jesus started teaching the new covenant right away so His teaching would reflect the new covenant. This new covenant was commonly called the “gospel” or good news (e.g. Mark 13:10)
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16.
you have heard it said…, but I tell you… [many places in Matthew 5 ]
…new wine in new wine skins…35 And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. Matthew 9:17,35
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. Luke 22:20 (1 Corinthians 11:25 is similar)
That’s why the gospels were recorded for us and why we follow them, unless context makes it clear it was for certain people only. And in the gospels Jesus was constantly forgiving sin right when people believed in Him (e.g. Luke 7:50). Romans 10:4 says Jesus is the end of the law.
If His teaching was meant for only the old covenant, especially something so critical as the point of salvation, that would have certainly been stated, or the start of the new covenant would have been very well defined with no ambiguity. That’s how God works. But God didn’t see fit to tell us exactly when the new covenant started; the dividing line is not needed if Jesus came teaching the new covenant as the verses above indicate. And it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would come and teach the Old Covenant, even for a little while.
4) Jesus was baptized for another reason than washing sins.
He was not baptized for remission of sin as we are, because He was sinless (I Peter 2:22). Instead, the Bible says He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). It sounds like he was doing it in obedience, just like I’m proposing we do.
5) Why was Paul thankful he didn’t baptize?
Another quick comment is that Paul was thankful he didn’t baptize many people and even contrasted preaching the gospel for salvation (see 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14) as a separate roll from baptism. Since most of his life was spent reaching the lost and saving them, you’d wonder why he said he wasn’t sent to baptize if that was the point of salvation. This is kind of an odd statement to make if baptism was the salvation point. It’s not conclusive, but you’d at least expect an explanation as to why he said this if baptism and salvation went hand in hand. John 4:2 records that Jesus didn’t baptize either, though his disciples did. Matt 3:11 even makes a distinction that Jesus will NOT baptize with water but with the Holy Spirit. These kinds of statements would be so odd if salvation happened at baptism and would surely have an explanation. In my article on denominations, I show how God always makes the critical things clear. I’ll also talk a little about this later.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:17,18
6) What about sins after salvation?
We understand that Jesus only had to die once and He now has the ability to always forgive sins. But if something is so critical that He can/will only forgive sins when we are baptized, what about sins we commit after that? Why is there no need for baptism for those? Ongoing faith and repentance are still needed.
7) Misc.
Hebrews 10:19-25 talks about drawing near to God with the new and living way opened for us by Jesus’ blood. It mentions Jesus’ blood, a sincere heart, faith, confession, our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience, and finally our bodies washed with pure water. There is obviously a lot of symbolism here, but water is specifically connected to the body, not the spirit or soul. So water immersion baptism for salvation or spiritual cleansing certainly doesn’t fit. It fits fine with baptism as a follow up symbol to our bodies showing what God has done in our hearts.
Part 2, What causes people to believe in salvation at baptism:
2.1) Scriptures that teach baptism is required
These four scriptures may show that baptism is commanded but not that it’s what actually initially saves you. It’s the confusion between initial salvation and lifelong obedience for salvation, as discussed in the summary. Here’s the first of these verses:
1st verse:
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:3-6.
Is this verse even talking about baptism?
This verse may actually not be talking about baptism because it is clearly in context of natural birth vs spiritual birth. So in context, the “water” seems to be talking about natural birth. Nicodemus clearly misunderstood Jesus’ statement to be born again as a natural birth and so Jesus said you have to be born of water and spirit in reply. See John 3:12 a few verses later. So it really seams water is talking about the natural birth. Those who insist this is talking about baptism make the argument that Jesus wouldn’t tell a man who was obviously already born to be born with a natural birth. But that’s not what He’s telling him. He’s telling him to be born again, this time with the Spirit. So it fits fine.
Even if this verse is talking about baptism, it’s only saying it’s one of many steps.
Since Jesus is just beginning to talk to this man (vs 3 as you see above is in fact His very first sentence to him) and hasn’t mentioned anything about faith in Him, repentance or asking God’s forgiveness, the man obviously can’t just be “born of water” and enter the kingdom as it says on the surface. This is one of the commonsense verses I’ll talk about in a minute. So even if you interpret the water here as baptism, it must just be one of many steps you take. It’s not the one single step where you enter the kingdom of God. When you look at other verses with very similar format it’s even clearer. Notice the similarity of this verse to these below, which emphasize other aspects of obedience, and see how some of these are clearly lifetime actions and you enter the Kingdom at the end of life.
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20 (Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 are similar)
and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3
“Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Acts 14:22b
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1 Cor 15:50
For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Ephesians 5:5,6
All of these are referring to entering the kingdom and each gives a unique aspect of the Christian life that is required. You have to be careful not to zero-in on just one verse and say that’s the one action where you enter the kingdom. The 2nd verse used for baptismal justification is also like that:
2nd verse:
Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [or into] the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
Are these the only two things required for salvation? Is this all you have to do? Or are they just two things of many things? Where’s the essential undisputed elements of faith and asking God’s forgiveness? So, everyone would agree not everything is mentioned here. And it could certainly be referring to the lifelong process of salvation. In fact two verses later it really seems to be clear that this is the lifelong process he’s talking about. It says he “kept on exhorting them.” And being “saved from a perverse generation” is certainly a lifelong process.
And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” Acts 2:40
And here again, just like in the 1st verse of John 3 above, we are helped by nearby verses that have similar structure but mention other aspects of obedience:
Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you Acts 3:19, 20.
See, this nearby verse is in a very similar context to the previous verse and talks about wiping sins away but there is no mention of baptism here. It is talking about other aspects of obedience. All the steps of obedience are not included in each verse. So I think these verses make the case for baptism being one of the required steps in the Christian life but not the actual point where you are saved.
“Into” the forgiveness of sins?
It should also be mentioned that Acts 2:38 could very well say “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ INTO the forgiveness of your sins” because this is actually the primary meaning of this Greek word “eis” (G1519). In this case the verse would be more symbolic, using the same Greek word in 1 Corinthians 10:2 which says the Israelites were baptized into Moses via the cloud and the sea, which is clearly symbolic. And also Ephesians 4:15 which says we are to grow up “into” Christ.
3rd and 4th verses:
These next two verses are also just mentioning baptism as one of the steps of obedience that saves us.
eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21
And “appeal to God for a good conscience” could certainly fit with a required step of obedience.
16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16 (Note that this is in the disputed add-on section for the abrupt ending of Mark)
This short verse is clearly a summary verse because not even repentance is mentioned. So it could certainly be referring to the lifelong process.
So, these four verses that mention baptism are just showing that it is one step of obedience and have to be interpreted with common sense and not total literalism.
The Bible has to be interpreted in context with common sense and balanced with all scripture.
I can see where these verses are unclear and can be interpreted differently. The Bible wasn’t written as a law book, where every word is defined, and all exceptions are stated. If it was it would be 10 times longer. It was written with the normal expectation of common sense and reading things in context. So many times a verse seems to teach something, and all kinds of cults and denominations will focus on those verses – everything from modalism (God and Jesus are one person) to eternal security while living unrepentantly in sin. Any denomination can make their case seem pretty clear by doing this. But you have to look at all the scriptures together. I heard it said, “the sum of thy word is truth” (Psalms 119:160) not, “some of thy word is truth”. Now that’s not to scare someone off from starting this journey of reading the Bible by themselves because they’re afraid they won’t interpret the truth. To a person with a sincere heart and conscience, the Bible is easy to follow, especially on the important points. Love God (which means abhor evil) and love others. Then read the Bible in books and chapters as it was meant to be read, not isolated verses. You’ll eventually naturally obey the clear scriptures to be baptized and whatever else. And if, hypothetically as the worst-case scenario, it is true that salvation does happen at baptism, then God will keep you safe until then as you sincerely seek Him. He’s certainly fair and just. (See Philippians 3:16.) But if we start trying to make ridged, dogmatic, absolute doctrines from isolated individual verses that don’t fit with other verses, then it’ll cause conflict, especially if we feel strongly that we need to convince other Christians. Then it starts people into debate and detailed examination of the scriptures and balancing them to other scriptures like I’m doing here. This article shows how the Bible can easily be misunderstood if you don’t take all scripture into account. I started jotting down all the verses that can be misunderstood. From Matthew 1 to 24 there are 12 passages like this. And they are serious things like teaching reincarnation, predestination, Gentiles are dogs, and keeping the Old Testament law. That’s one confusing verse in every other chapter so far. I’ve now found about 70 total. This shows why there are so many disagreements within Christianity and why it’s so important to balance all scripture and not zero-in on one verse even if it seems crystal clear.
2.2) Symbolic verses
The next three verses that cause confusion are symbolic verses. I believe baptism is a commanded sacrament for a public identification of following Jesus and repenting of sin, with the symbology of being crucified with Him, dying, and raising from the dead, with a double meaning of also dying to ourselves and living for God (cf. Romans 6, Colossians 2:11,12 and Colossians 3:1). That’s why it’s so important. But it’s symbolic. Protestants don’t have any problem taking the clear commands of Jesus to “eat His flesh” as symbolic sacraments. Likewise, the washing of sins during baptism could also be a commanded symbolic sacrament. No one believes that water actually washes sins away. So it’s obvious that there’s a certain amount of symbology. The Bible constantly uses symbology. 1 John 1:7 says Jesus’ blood washes our sins away but we’re sure not going to take that literally and incorporate it into baptism. There are references in the 4th century to Christians literally stripping off all clothes during baptism (thankfully they separated the genders) and putting on a special garment as they come up out of the water to fulfil Galatians 3 to be clothed with Christ. So you can see how people can go too far with interpreting symbolic verses literally. So we don’t need to take the symbology of baptism literal, either of being dead with Christ and raised with him or of washing our sins away. A teaching like this would be paramount doctrine, which the Bible never hides away in an obscure verse that could be confused as symbolic.
Here are the three verses using symbology. It’s evident. And the first verse might not even be related to this discussion because they are talking more about living in the Spirit and not the flesh, than forgiveness of sins and the point of salvation. See Galatians 5:16-26, Ephesians 4:17-24 and Romans 7 and 8 for more on this topic.
1st verse:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. Romans 6:1-7
2nd verse:
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Galatians 3:27
3rd verse:
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16
When was Paul saved?
This 3rd verse above is strongly used for baptismal justification because they think Paul made the initial steps of salvation on the Damascus road, but was not saved until baptism a few days later. But if you look at the passage, Paul does not take the steps to salvation when Jesus talks to him. Yes he believed and repented of course. But Paul did not ask forgiveness, call on His name, or receive the Spirit, etc. Jesus merely told him to wait in the city and he would be told what to do. So days later Ananias laid hands on him, filling him with the Sprit, and then baptized him. This account in Acts 22 is Paul retelling the story and is summarized. Some of the details are in the original account in Acts 9 (below). The point of salvation isn’t specifically mentioned, but receiving the Spirit is mentioned and is clearly before the baptism. I discussed above about how the Spirit is an indication of salvation, so he was saved before he was baptized. Here’s the parallel passage to Acts 22 that gives more details:
6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do… 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; Acts 9:6, 17, 18
Paul was washed of his sins by “calling on His name”
It should also be noted that even in the summarizing verse in Acts 22:16, the washing of sins is in the 2nd part of the verse which is a compound sentence of two thoughts, and so washing sins is actually connected to “calling on His name”. Calling on His name for salvation is a common phrase (e.g. Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13). Those advocating baptismal justification may say the washing must mean baptism, but this is a generic term used often in the Bible apart from baptism so we can’t be sure of this. E.g. Titus 3:4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Revelation 7:14, and Revelation 22:14 use “wash” in a sense not related to baptism. When comparing to Acts 9 we can see Acts 22 is a summary verse anyway so it would be hard to get doctrine from fine details in this verse. But even as they are stated, there is nothing in Acts 9 or Acts 22 to teach baptismal justification.
Other uses of baptism symbology
It’s interesting that this symbology of baptism is used loosely in other places too. 1 Peter 3:21 says the flood water, which saved 8 people, symbolizes baptism which now saves us. It says it’s a “appeal to God for a good conscience” just like you’d expect as a step of obedience in the lifelong process of salvation. And obviously the flood was nothing like an immersion baptism. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 says in passing that the Israelites that passed thru the red sea were baptized into Moses and the sea. Again, this was nothing like an immersion baptism but Paul casually makes this passing statement without much further comment. So you sure have to be careful not to take symbolic verses literally.
2.3) Examples of quick baptism
Another source of confusion is that we see baptism often happened quickly in Acts. But we all know we can’t define doctrine from these early examples – like sharing our possessions which was also seen in Acts (this is called “common purse” and some people do take that as doctrine). Baptism was done quickly because there is no reason not to take this first step of obedience, especially when evangelists are on the move. Yes baptism should be done quickly if possible. However the fine difference between belief in required baptism (item 3 on the inital list) and baptismal justification (item 4) is how quickly you absolutely must be baptized. Weather, resources or other circumstances can make it very dangerous, difficult, or even impossible to be baptized right away. Perhaps if you just had a week you could make the arrangements. But if you truly aren’t saved until then, then you’d do whatever it took because you wouldn’t know if you’d make it a week. It just doesn’t seem to fit the Bible and certainly doesn’t fit the faith alone theme of Romans 4 and 10. And many people in persecuted countries have been killed in prison or in some other way before they were baptized, as discussed earlier.
2.4) Cross linking of verses that use similar words.
One of the most unreliable methods to make doctrines is to link verses together from entirely different passages, even different books. This is always dangerous because the Bible often uses the same word to mean different things and it can be symbolic in different ways, even if the surrounding topic is the same. You can come up with some pretty wild doctrines this way. And this is not how the Bible was meant to be interpreted. Instead, it was meant to be interpreted in context in whole books.
Part 3, Church specific practices on baptism
So now I’ll get into some church practices of baptism. It’s common and understandable that many churches will want you to be baptized into their local church or denomination. This is a way of saying you unite with that church/denomination and submit to its leaders, regarding the church (e.g. you won’t teach things contrary to them or cause division in the church). They think you are saved if you have been baptized in another church, they just want you to be baptized into their church for membership. On the other hand, I’m sure there are some churches that would say you are not saved until you are baptized into their church by their leaders, making them the only church. and this would of course be a concerning sign of a cult. (category 5 in my initial list).
One teaching that I was exposed to is the Church of Christ. At least some of these churches teach that a person has to have a correct understanding that Baptism is for forgiveness of sins when they are baptized for it to be valid. I checked into it, and this seems to have come about by one man in the late 1800’s in one of the churches of the Restoration Movement, a 19th century merger of two major leaders (Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell). An exhaustive study was conducted in the late 1990’s by many members of these churches, called the The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement edited by Douglas Allen Foster and Anthony L. Dunnavant. So this seems to be a trustworthy Church of Christ source. According to my understanding of this work, this teaching on rebaptism came about from Austin McGary. He argued that “belief that baptism is for remission of sins is essential to its validity” and started or wrote in numerous publications over many years and had written debates with two other publishers, Thomas Burnett (Christian Messenger) and David Lipscomb (Gospel Advocate) who argued that “if a believer was baptized out of a desire to obey God, the baptism was valid, even if the individual did not fully understand the role baptism plays in salvation”. The encyclopedia records that McGary was very fervent on this issue and used harsh mean-spirited insulting attacks (though it records that he apologized later right before his death) thru his publications, which were a powerful means to spread his message (back when sources of information were rarer). Many churches were persuaded, but not all. The encyclopedia records that McGary was later exposed for selling a fake patent-medicine remedy under the name of Dr. Burlington that was found to just be tar water (a “snake oil” scam).
It’s gotten to the point now that this may have become a tool to draw disciples away from other churches because recent divisions of these churches re-baptize each other, even when they had the proper understanding during baptism. Taking members from other churches is all too common. My family has actually experienced this. A woman from one of these churches saw our Christian bumper sticker at a store and looked hard for us and told us she was looking for Christian fellowship. Naturally you’re inclined to think that meant she didn’t have any, right? Well, after a couple meetings at a park with her family and other friends of ours, whom we had also invited, we were soon invited to special meetings at her church. We found out that she was part of it all along.
Here’s a random website article I found regarding the internal church debate on rebaptism.
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx697.htm
I found the same basic info on this website which looks like a routine restoration movement bio on McGary from a restoration movement historical source, not a critical attack.
https://www.therestorationmovement.com/_states/texas/mcgary,austin.htm
Works Cited
Dave Miller, P. (2022, August). Gentiles Received the Spirit Before Baptism? Retrieved from Apologetics Press: https://apologeticspress.org/gentiles-received-the-spirit-before-baptism/