|
|
|
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources
|
|
| Home > Evangelism > Is Baptism Required for Salvation: Part Three | Email this article |
|
Is Baptism Required for Salvation?
Introduction
In Part One of this series we defined what "proper faith" in Jesus means, and we saw that the outward actions of confessing our sins, saying a "sinner's prayer," calling on the Name of the Lord, confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, making Jesus the Lord of our life, obeying all of Jesus' commands, and speaking in tongues, are not necessary for salvation. Some Christians believe that salvation is based on proper faith alone (the "faith-alone" view), and other Christians believe that salvation is based on proper faith followed by water baptism (the "faith-plus-baptism" view). One of these views is right, and the other view is wrong. One of these views harmonizes with the entire New Testament, and the other view does not. This makes it very easy to find out which view is right! Again, only one view is correct, and we saw that only one view harmonizes perfectly with Scripture using every approach that we examined. The faith-alone view is the right view of salvation. In Part Two we examined dozens of passages which say that faith is the only requirement for salvation. We also saw that a number of people in the New Testament were baptized in water after they received salvation, and therefore baptism cannot be required for salvation. In this article we'll look at Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38a, two of the main passages which some people use as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation. Mark 16:16a
On the surface, Mark 16:16 appears to say that baptism is a requirement for salvation: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)Those who hold the faith-alone view of salvation, and those who hold the faith-plus-baptism view, all agree that whoever does not believe in Jesus will be condemned (see the last part of Mark 16:16, above). The area of disagreement is in the first part of the verse, which is usually referred to as Mark 16:16a. Here are several reasons why Mark 16:16a does not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation: 1. Mark 16:16a - The Problem of the Scriptural Contradiction
According to the faith-alone group, there is only one requirement for salvation (having faith in Jesus as our Savior). According to the faith-plus-baptism group, there are two requirements for salvation (having faith in Jesus as our Savior plus being baptized in water). Both groups agree that these two views cannot both be right because they contradict each other. Either there is one requirement for salvation or there are two requirements, we can't have it both ways. To make this point a different way, consider the following illustration. A young girl wants to join the book club at her local library, and the advertisement says that whoever pays a $5 entrance fee can join the book club. When her father takes her to the library, he's told that whoever pays a $5 entrance fee and donates a book can join the book club. The father says, "Wait a minute, you have changed the requirements from what your advertisement says." Notice that the father was given two different sets of entrance requirements, and they can't both be right because they contradict each other. Either there is one requirement for joining the book club (an entrance fee) or there are two requirements (an entrance fee plus a book donation), they can't have it both ways. In order to clearly see the contradiction in Scripture which is created by the faith-plus-baptism view, let's look at the two entrance requirements for the book club and compare them with two statements that Jesus made:
In exactly the same way, notice that statement #3 says that there are two entrance requirements for heaven, according to the faith-plus-baptism view. If this is true then statement #4 is false because it's missing one of the requirements. Think about it for a moment. But statement #4 can't be false because Scripture doesn't lie! Therefore, the faith-plus-baptism view creates a contradiction in Scripture, which means that it's the wrong view of salvation. In a few moments we'll see that the faith-alone view properly harmonizes statement #3 and statement #4, which means that the faith-alone view is the correct view of salvation. 2. Mark 16:16a - The Problem of the Logical Fallacy
Here is Mark 16:16a again: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)Based on this verse, the faith-plus-baptism view makes the following assumption: Whoever believes and is not baptized will not be saved.However, this assumption is based on a logical fallacy. In other words, this assumption contains an error in logic. To see why, first look closely at these statements and notice that both of these statements are true:
For more on common logical fallacies, see:
So when people use Mark 16:16a as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation, they're making a wrong assumption based on a logical fallacy. Their assumption is wrong because they've used an erroneous way to form the negative of Mark 16:16a. 3. Mark 16:16a - The Problem of the Dual Support
Let's assume for a moment that in order to receive salvation we must believe in Jesus and be baptized in water. In this case, Mark 16:16a is a true statement: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)Now let's assume for a moment that in order to receive salvation we only need to believe in Jesus. In this case, Mark 16:16a is a true statement: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)Notice that if believing is the only requirement for salvation then we're saved no matter what we do after we believe (such as being baptized after we believe). So if the only requirement for salvation is to believe in Jesus as our Savior, then whoever believes will be saved by his faith (John 3:36a, above), and whoever believes and is baptized will be saved by his faith (Mark 16:16a, above). The point here is that Mark 16:16a supports both the faith-plus-baptism view and the faith-alone view. Therefore, it can't be used to prove that either view is right. 4. Mark 16:16a - The Problem of the Multiple Elements
Notice that this is a true statement: Whoever breathes and is baptized is alive.The above statement is true, but clearly it doesn't mean that a person is required to be baptized in order to be alive. Now apply the same reasoning to Mark 16:16a: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16a)Again, the above statement is true, but it doesn't mean that a person is required to be baptized in order to be saved. To make this clearer, notice that we can add more elements and still have a true statement: Whoever believes and is baptized and lives in Texas and has brown hair and owns a pet and wears glasses will be saved.The above statement is true, but clearly it doesn't mean that a person is required to live in Texas or have brown hair or own a pet or wear glasses in order to be saved. What this demonstrates is that if a statement has multiple elements in it (two or more), then we don't have enough information in that statement to determine if any of those elements are requirements. So in the above statement, how can we find out if living in Texas, for example, is a requirement for salvation? One way is to look for any New Testament passages which specifically say that living in Texas (and nothing else) is a requirement, such as a statement like this: Whoever lives in Texas will be saved.The only other way is to look for any New Testament passages which specifically give us the "negative" of living in Texas (and nothing else), such as a statement like this: Whoever does not live in Texas will not be saved.These are the only ways to prove that something is required for salvation. In Part Two we saw that there are dozens of New Testament passages which specifically say that faith (and nothing else) is required for salvation. In addition, several New Testament passages specifically say that people who do not believe in Jesus are not saved (e.g. Mark 16:16b, John 3:18). Therefore, having proper faith in Jesus (as defined in Part One) is required for salvation. However, there are no New Testament passages which specifically say that baptism (and nothing else) is required for salvation, and there are no New Testament passages which specifically say that people who are not baptized are not saved. Therefore, baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Summary of Mark 16:16a
What it boils down to is that the faith-plus-baptism interpretation of Mark 16:16a creates a contradiction in Scripture, and it makes a wrong assumption based on a logical fallacy, and it misses the fact that Mark 16:16a supports both the faith-plus-baptism view and the faith-alone view, and it wrongly assumes that each individual element in Mark 16:16a is a requirement for salvation. Acts 2:38a
On the surface, Acts 2:38a appears to say that baptism is a requirement for salvation: "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."" (Acts 2:38a)However, here are several reasons why Acts 2:38a does not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation: 1. Acts 2:38a - The Problem of the Scriptural Contradiction
According to the faith-alone group, there is only one requirement for salvation (having faith in Jesus as our Savior). According to the faith-plus-baptism group, there are two requirements for salvation (having faith in Jesus as our Savior plus being baptized in water). Both groups agree that these two views cannot both be right because they contradict each other. Either there is one requirement for salvation or there are two requirements, we can't have it both ways. To make this point a different way, consider the following illustration. A young girl wants to join the book club at her local library, and the advertisement says that whoever pays a $5 entrance fee can join the book club. When her father takes her to the library, he's told that whoever pays a $5 entrance fee and donates a book can join the book club. The father says, "Wait a minute, you have changed the requirements from what your advertisement says." Notice that the father was given two different sets of entrance requirements, and they can't both be right because they contradict each other. Either there is one requirement for joining the book club (an entrance fee) or there are two requirements (an entrance fee plus a book donation), they can't have it both ways. In order to clearly see the contradiction in Scripture which is created by the faith-plus-baptism view, let's look at the two entrance requirements for the book club and compare them with two statements that Peter made:
In exactly the same way, notice that statement #3 says that there are two entrance requirements for heaven, according to the faith-plus-baptism view. If this is true then statement #4 is false because it's missing one of the requirements. Think about it for a moment. But statement #4 can't be false because Scripture doesn't lie! Therefore, the faith-plus-baptism view creates a contradiction in Scripture, which means that it's the wrong view of salvation. As we have seen, the faith-alone view properly harmonizes statement #3 and statement #4, which means that the faith-alone view is the correct view of salvation. 2. Acts 2:38a - The Problem of the Logical Fallacy
Here is Acts 2:38a again: "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."" (Acts 2:38a)Based on this verse, the faith-plus-baptism view makes the following assumption: Whoever repents and is not baptized will not be saved.However, this assumption is based on a logical fallacy. In other words, this assumption contains an error in logic. To see why, first look closely at these statements and notice that both of these statements are true:
For more on common logical fallacies, see:
So when people use Acts 2:38a as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation, they're making a wrong assumption based on a logical fallacy. Their assumption is wrong because they've used an erroneous way to form the negative of Acts 2:38a. 3. Acts 2:38a - The Problem of the Greek Word eis
The Greek word eis is often translated as "for," as in these examples: Matthew 3:11a: "I baptize you with water for [eis] repentance."In Matthew 3:11a (above), the Greek word eis essentially means "on account of," because people were baptized on account of the fact that they had repented. In Matthew 26:28 (above), the Greek word eis essentially means "to cause," because Jesus poured out His blood in order to cause (enable) people's sins to be forgiven. But what is the meaning of eis in Acts 2:38a (above)? Bible commentaries point out that throughout the New Testament, eis is most often used in the "causing" sense. However, notice that Matthew 3:11a (above) is not using eis in the "causing" sense. Therefore, we can't automatically assume that Acts 2:38a is using eis in the "causing" sense. To help us evaluate the word eis ("for") in Acts 2:38a, consider the following statement: The famous art thief was wanted for a robbery.Notice that there's no way for us to know what the above statement means unless we're given some context. For example, if we're told that the art thief is wanted by the police, then he's probably wanted on account of the fact that he committed a robbery. But if we're told that the art thief is wanted by a collector of stolen art, then he's probably wanted in order to cause (commit) a robbery. The point here is that it's the context which enables us to determine the proper meaning of the word "for" in the statement about the art thief. Therefore, let's consider the context of the three verses above. In Matthew 3:11a (above), how do we know that the word "for" (eis) essentially means "on account of"? Because in the context of the entire New Testament there's no such thing as water baptism "causing" people to repent, but instead the New Testament shows people being baptized "on account of" their repentance (see Part Two). In Matthew 26:28 (above), how do we know that the word "for" (eis) essentially means "to cause"? Because in the context of the entire New Testament, the forgiveness of sins is "caused" (enabled) by the shedding of Jesus' blood (e.g. Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:22). In Acts 2:38a (above), how can we determine what the word "for" (eis) means? We can only determine the proper meaning by examining the context of the entire New Testament concerning baptism and salvation. As we've seen throughout this series, the context of the entire New Testament shows that proper faith is the only requirement for salvation. This leaves us with two possible ways to interpret the word "for" in Acts 2:38a (above), both of which are Scripturally accurate:
4. Acts 2:38a - The Problem of the Singulars and Plurals
Notice that it's fairly obvious where we should put parentheses in the following sentence: Two girls and one is my daughter were lifting their voices in song.It's clear that the various parts of the sentence simply need to be grouped according to their number (i.e. singular versus plural), like this: Two girls (and one is my daughter) were lifting their voices in song.We can see that it's easy to indicate that a phrase should be in parentheses, simply by using singular and plural terms. This is because the rules of grammar tell us that singular terms need to be associated with singular terms, and plural terms need to be associated with plural terms. For example, intuitively we know that something is wrong when we mix singular terms with plural terms: Two girls (and one is my daughter) was lifting her voices in song.Clearly it's important for singular and plural terms to correspond properly, otherwise the sentence makes no sense. The same is true for Acts 2:38a, because it contains a mixture of singular and plural terms in the Greek (as we'll see in a moment). According to Bible scholars, the ancient Greek manuscripts sometimes contain the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38a (I'll refer to this as "Version A"), and sometimes they contain the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" (I'll refer to this as "Version B"). Let's examine both of these versions of Acts 2:38a and try to determine where parentheses should go, based on the singular and plural terms:
Here are some things that Bible scholars say about the singular and plural terms in Acts 2:38a: "And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekastoß –mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve." (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament Summary of Acts 2:38a
What it boils down to is that the faith-plus-baptism interpretation of Acts 2:38a creates a contradiction in Scripture, and it makes a wrong assumption based on a logical fallacy, and it misses the fact that the Greek word eis ("for") only supports the faith-alone view of salvation, and it misses the fact that the singular and plural terms in the Greek support the faith-alone view of salvation, not the faith-plus-baptism view. Conclusion
Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38a are sometimes considered to be the strongest proof of the faith-plus-baptism view. However, we saw that the faith-plus-baptism interpretation of these two verses causes a contradiction with dozens of New Testament passages. Therefore, the faith-plus-baptism view is not the correct view of salvation. We also saw that the faith-plus-baptism view makes a wrong assumption in these two verses based on a logical fallacy. The assumption is wrong because it uses an erroneous way to form the negative of Mark 16:16a and Acts 2:38a. Another problem we saw is that Mark 16:16a supports both the faith-plus-baptism view and the faith-alone view. Therefore, it can't be used to prove that either view is right. We also saw that if a statement has multiple elements in it (two or more), then we don't have enough information in that statement to determine if any of those elements are requirements. For this reason, Mark 16:16a does not prove that baptism is a requirement for salvation. When we looked at the Greek word eis ("for") in Acts 2:38a, we saw that our interpretation of this word must be based on the context of the entire New Testament. For this reason, the Greek word eis in Acts 2:38a can only support the faith-alone view of salvation. Finally, we saw that because of the singular and plural terms in Acts 2:38a, this verse supports the faith-alone view, not the faith-plus-baptism view. All for Your glory, Lord Jesus! |
