Daily Devotional: Does Mark 16:16 Teach Baptism is an Essential Condition for Salvation?

Thank you Anthony for your well-articulated response. First, I would not classify my position as baptismal regeneration since it implies an ex opera operate view equated with Roman Catholicism. I don’t believe the act of water baptism “exclusively” causes regeneration. Faith and repentance are necessary conditions preceding water baptism. So then, faith, repentance, and water baptism doesn’t save us. It is God who saves. The question really is, “When does he save us?”

Furthermore, I would never baptize an infant because (1). They are not at the age of accountability to be personally responsible for their sins (2). While faith is easy to understand, even for a child, an infant doesn’t have the cognitive ability to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Thus, if a person gets baptized but doesn’t truly believe, God is not going to apply His atoning work at that moment. As Peter makes it clear, baptism is the timing in which God saves, but not because of the water, or the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an “appeal to God for a good conscience.” I agree with Martin Luther, who was the main proponent of justification by faith. He said this concerning baptism: “that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, and something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized enough, but because God’s name is joined to it…It follows from this that whoever rejects baptism rejects God’s word.”

You said: If, Mark 16:16 is saying what you suggest, then it must harmonize with many other passages that do NOT suggest baptism as a necessary part of salvation. Examples: John 3:16, 18, 38; 5:24; 6:53-54; 8:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:1-25; 1 John 5:13, and others.

First, you are assuming John 3:16 is allegorical, a spirit baptism. This is a relatively new teaching post-Zwingli in the Protestant Reformation. The common interpretation of the early church was the Greek word “laver”, which meant water baptism. For instance, here is a quote from the early church Father Irenaeus. He said: “And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” (2 Kings 5:14) It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) (Fragments, 34).

You said: Then, of course, there are people like the thief on the cross and a lady who died in our church to consider. Jesus promised the thief on the cross that “Today you will be with me in paradise.” He wasn’t baptized. The lady in my church actually had a heart attack and died walking up the steps to the pool…did she therefore die lost? Also, are bedside conversions totally useless? How many have gotten saved in hospitals, only to die there without ever getting baptized? Are they all lost?

The thief on the cross was saved before the new covenantal promise like all other OT saints. For instance, By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. These OT saints were indeed saved by their faith, but they didn’t have the new revelation of who Jesus was at that time.

For instance, Job didn’t know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but He trusted in a redeemer. Abraham didn’t believe the sacrificial system would save him, but he knew it pointed to something much greater than the system (The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world).

After Jesus rises from the dead, He gives a new command: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, the thief was still under the old dispensation, not the new. It isn’t until after the Great commission when baptism is implemented. As Acts 2:38-42 makes clear, “What must we do to be saved?” Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

You said: As for Acts 22:16, do you think Saul was not actually saved up until the point where he was baptized? Other passages that speak of “baptism” are not, I believe, speaking of literal immersion in water, such as with Galatians 3:27 (the same language is used in 1 Cor. 10:2 where it says, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea.”)

In Acts 22:16, Saul is told to do something. Ananias tells him to, “get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” If Saul was spiritually baptized already and water baptism was an “external sign” of an inward grace, then why would Saul mention “washing away your sins” during the timing of water baptism?

I would agree with you that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, not by the water. But I don’t separate water and spirit baptism. As Ephesians 4:5 clearly states there is one faith, one lord, and one baptism. Both of us would agree with the mode of baptism as symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Right? What you are saying is the symbol doesn’t happen at the same time as the actual? You would argue spirit baptism happens first, then later, we are water baptized to demonstrate what has already occurred. I just don’t see any Scripture warrant for that.

If you look at the context of Acts 22:16, Saul is calling on the name shortly before he is water baptized. He is asking God, just like Peter mentions in 1 Pet. 3:21, to save him by his grace. He is calling on the name of the Lord. When do we call on the name of the Lord? When we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Only then does Romans 10:13 makes sense: “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” When do we call on the name? During the sinner’s prayer or during baptism? There is no mention of asking Jesus into your heart for salvation, but there are verses that tell us to repent and be baptized. To call on his name to be saved, and the great commission nicely parallels that since we know we are baptized into the “name of Christ,” into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit.

You said: What about Acts 10:44-48? Here there were people on whom the Holy Ghost fell, they spoke in other tongues – a sign that the gospel had come to the gentiles – and yet they had not been baptized. Would God have done that to these people before conversion? That would seem totally illogical.

What is the point of Acts 10? To demonstrate that the promise was also given to the Gentiles. Peter was struggling in his vision between unclean and clean animals, but then God gave him a vision that even the Gentiles are called to salvation.” Then he says to Cornelius what is permitting him now from being baptized just as they were? God gave a visible sign to Peter to fulfill the prophecy in Joel 3 and to include both Jew and Gentile to the new promise, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Now Peter has no excuse but to “baptize them in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

You said: “And lastly – because this has been a very long response – I would like to consider the Philippian jailer in Acts 16. In verse 30 he asks, ““Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” What is the response from Paul? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (v31). No mention of baptism. It was only AFTER this that this converted jailer took them and “washed their stripes,” THEN “he and his family were baptized” (v33).”

This is an interesting verse. The Grace Evangelical Society, which is part of the “faith only” movement, says that repentance should not be included in the gospel. Their reasoning is that repentance is not mentioned. Only faith. Only believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. That’s it. But of course, you and I know there are other verses in Scripture that call people to “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Verses that teach “Repent and be baptized”. Even if you exclude baptism as a necessary condition, you have to include repentance because it comes before the Greek word “eis.” If it comes before eis, which is motion toward, then repentance is prior to salvation. Taking this verse in isolation, I could argue only faith saves, but Scripture must interpret Scripture.

Moreover, that “same day” the Philippian jailer went to his house, and as the disciples were sharing more about the gospel, he and his whole household got baptized. What’s really significant is after baptism, the Scripture says this: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.”

Rejoicing oftentimes is related to salvation. The same thing happened to the Ethiopian eunuch. He was told the gospel, and then without any further inquiry, he asks: “What is permitting me from being baptized?” This demonstrates baptism was included in the gospel message. Second, the text makes it clear this is water baptism. He is asking to be baptized in the river, a physical location. And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. He went on his way rejoicing after he was baptized.

You said: Other passages that speak of “baptism” are not, I believe, speaking of literal immersion in water, such as with Galatians 3:27.

In the book of Galatians, the Judaizers were rebuked by the Apostle Paul for adding physical circumcision to the gospel. They are telling Gentile believers one must be “circumcised” in order to be saved.

Paul writes in Galatians 3:26-27: So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If baptism were equivalent to circumcision, why does Paul still mention baptism as necessary to become united into Christ? Wouldn’t it have been better for him to say: “Look, people are also telling you one must be baptized in order to be part of the church just like they are doing with circumcision. Ignore these people. All one must do to be saved is “repent and have faith.” But he doesn’t say that and it would have been a perfect analogy since circumcision was the “covenantal rite” to become Jewish.

Anthony, I appreciate your feedback. I think you make some good points, and I would encourage you to continue seeking the truth. The important distinction between you and us is not whether we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. You include repentance and faith whereas I include repentance, faith, and baptism. The biggest disagreement is the “timing” in which we are “converted.” Does it happen when we have faith? When he have faith and are in the state of repenting?

The analogy I have used in the past is this. Let’s say Joe has a desire to marry Cindy. Joe trusts that Cindy is the right woman for him. He has promised to forsake all other women for Cindy. He wants to be married. When does he become married? It’s not until the ceremony. Does the ceremony cause the two to become one flesh? Of course not. Only God has the ability to bring two together in a spiritual sense. But I am saying that the actual marriage and the spiritual reality don’t happen at two separate instances. They happen at the same time. And that is what divides the church on the issue concerning baptism. Have a great day sir!

LikeLike