Is baptism necessary for salvation, as Catholicism teaches? Is baptism just a symbol? Is baptism a means by which grace is conveyed to us, as Lutherans teach? Is it ok to sprinkle, or is submersion the only appropriate method to use? What about infant baptism?

Many people have questions about the nature of baptism and its role in a believer's life. Setting aside the philosophies and traditions of fallen man, we'll take a look at what scripture has to say.

The Word Itself

The word translated "baptism" is the Greek baptizo, which refers to burial, plunging, dipping, or immersion. The word itself excludes sprinkling. The following is an excerpt from Strong's Lexicon:

907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}

from a derivative of 911; TDNT - 1:529,92; verb

AV - baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

++++ Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

908 baptisma {bap'-tis-mah}

from 907; TDNT - 1:545,92; n n

AV - baptism 22; 22

1. immersion, submersion

1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed

1b) of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.

1c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.

++++ In Rom. 6:3 Paul states we are "baptised unto death" meaning that we are not only dead to our former ways, but they are buried. To return to them is as unthinkable for a Christian as for one to dig up a dead corpse! In Moslem countries a new believer has little trouble with Moslems until he is publicly baptised. It is then, that the Moslems' know he means business, and then the persecution starts. See also discussion of baptism under No. 907.

909 baptismos {bap-tis-mos'}

from 907; TDNT - 1:545,92; n m

AV - washing 3, baptism 1; 4

1) a washing, purification effected by means of water

1a) of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:10) which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptis

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

The short answer is no, baptism is not required for salvation. More specifically, of the two baptisms having to do with salvation--that of water and that of the Holy Spirit--water baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism by the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment someone becomes a believer.

The Thief and the Woman

Perhaps the most common argument that baptism is not required for salvation involves the thief on the cross. As Christ was being hanging on the tree, the repentant thief hanging next to Him had no chance to be baptized before he died:

  • Luke 23:42-43 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

If baptism were necessary for salvation, then Christ would be a liar. How could the thief enter paradise without being baptized? Many would answer this objection--mainly Lutherans and Catholics--by suggesting that baptism is required for salvation when it is possible. They argue that the thief was unable to be baptized, and God in His mercy allowed him into paradise without him being baptized. If the thief could enter heaven without being baptized, is baptism truly required? Of course not.

But fine, ok, let's play the game. Let's assume that our demonstrative proof against baptismal regeneration has holes in it. What if there were an instance in which someone was quite able to be baptized, and yet was saved without it? Recall the woman who anointed Christ with oil as He was eating with the Pharisees:

  • Luke 7:48-50 Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Christ pronounced the woman's sins already forgiven, and herself already saved. In fact, though Christ's ministry of baptism had already begun by this time, He did not issue instruction for her to be baptized. Surely Christ would not have forgotten such an important issue if baptism were indeed required for salvation.

Two Baptisms

As mentioned previously, there are two baptisms commonly referred to in reference to Christian living--the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and baptism with water. At the moment of salvation, as soon as someone comes to faith in Christ, he is baptized by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is a symbol and external witness of what has already occurred as an internal change.

In Acts 10, the story is told of the salvation of Gentiles at Cornelius' house, and the story is recounted in Acts 11:

  • Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.
  • Acts 11:15-17 "Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?"

Clearly, these people were saved before they were baptized. The distinction had been made by Christ Himself between baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Belief and Baptism in Mark 16:16
  • Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

First, Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the most reliable Greek manuscripts. Building such a pivotal doctrine such as baptismal regeneration off such a section would be a questionable thing to do. However, I will not assert that these verses are not part of the Word of God, and so I will address them.

The second thing that needs to be addressed before getting into this verse is the method used to interpret scripture. If you believe scripture to be the inerrant Word of God, then you must assume that scripture cannot contradict itself. If two verses seem to contradict each other, the problem is with interpretation rather than with scripture itself. Use the more abundant and more clear scriptures to interpret the few controversial verses. The teaching of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone is found throughout the entire Bible, and so we can assume that a reading of Mark 16:16 whereby baptism becomes required for salvation is an errant interpretation.

So what's going on here? Since our interpretation seems to be the cause of the problem here, let's just restate what the verse says without adding meaning to it: Someone who believes in Christ and is baptized is saved, while someone who does not believe is not saved. Notice, there are two things used to describe the one who is saved--belief and baptism--and only one to describe the condemned--unbelief. If baptism were required for salvation, we would expect to see it also included in the second phrase desribing the condemned. The only thing that condemns a man, according to this verse, is unbelief. But doesn't this sound contradictary to the first part of the verse?

The doctrine of baptism was strong during the time Mark was written. In fact, 200 years after Christ, some people were still preaching the baptism of John the Baptist, proclaiming the One who would come...after Christ had already come! It is not surprising, then, that baptism would be mentioned here in the same breath as belief. Consider the following statement: "Mark went put his coat on and stopped shaking, so he was warm, while Pheobe did not put her coat on, so she was cold." Two things were said in reference to Mark--putting his coat on and no long shaking, while one thing was mentioned regarding Pheobe--being coatless. Hopefully you see where this is going. Mark's shaking wasn't a requisite for him being warm. In fact, the absence of shaking was an outward sign of what had already taken place. Baptism is often associated with salvation, as not shaking is associated with being warm. While two things were mentioned in Mark 16:16 to describe the saved individual, only one was a prerequisite.

Baptism that Now Saves You
  • 1 Peter 3:18-21 Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit. In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison, after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water. And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you -- not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

While this verse is often put forth as evidence for baptismal regeneration, it ironically includes a statement in stark contradiction to such a doctrine. The last phrase reveals which baptism is being spoken of here: "And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you -- not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...." The baptism here is not the washing off of physical dirt. As much as I love the NET Bible, its translation seems to be lacking here. The word translated "pledge" is Greek for "answer" or "response." Knowing this, the verse reads that the baptism is a response to God.

Why Baptize, Then?

Baptism is commanded by God. Not as a requirement for salvation, but as a recognition of it. Not being baptized is disobedience to God, but this does not affect our justification. We are also told to share the gospel, but this is not a requirement for salvation, either. In the early church, baptism was a big deal, and generally followed immediately after salvation. After the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, there is not a single story in the Bible of salvation without baptism. While many use this to show that one must be baptized to be saved, it merely stresses the importance of baptism in the early church.

Symbolism

When we are baptized, we are giving an outward sign of our already being saved. It symbolizes our participation in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

Method

Because baptism is a symbol, I do not believe that the method of baptism is as important as the subject's heart. It's not some magical, "Eye of a newt, heart of a dragon, dance around a few times and say the magic words" type of thing. However, the Biblical method of baptism is submersion. Think of the River Jordan, with people going out into the water, and being dunked completely (death) into the water(burial), then rising out of it (resurrection). With sprinkling, this symbolism is lost. I will not state dogmatically that it is an asbolute necessity that individuals follow this procedure, but it is the preferred method. At some point, symbolism is lost, and the only thing that ties the different methods of baptism together is the use of water. Again, the main point is that your heart is focused on the things of God.

Infant Baptism

Infant baptism is required, according to some religions, for salvation. Catholicism is the most well-known practitioner of infant baptism. This is complete heresy, and denies the Gospel message of grace. There is no Biblical foundation for the doctrine of infant baptism.

There are a number of Christian denominations, however, where infant baptism is a symbol of dedication. That is, the parents dedicate their child to Christ, making the public statement that they intend to raise him or her according to the manner appropriate for Christian families. There is no precedent for this in scripture, but there is no reason why this shouldn't happen. Again, it's a heart issue. If infant baptism is practiced according to the belief that it is necessary for salvation, it is a heretical practice and should be harshly condemned. But who would stop a family from dedicating their child to Christ?