10 Facts About Baptism (Eric Hall)
10 Objections to Baptism (Eric Hall)
The Gospel of Naaman (Eric Hall)
A Classic Sermon on Baptism by N.B. Hardeman
Fact #1: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Fact #2: Baptism is a part of every conversion in the book of Acts.
Fact #3: There is one baptism.
Fact #4: Baptism is central to our fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Fact #5: The baptism of the Great Commission is water baptism.
Fact #6: The baptism of the Great Commission is not the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Fact #8: Baptism is how we enter into Christ.
Fact #9: Gospel preaching prompts immediate baptisms.
Fact #10: Baptism is not a meritorious work.
Objection #1: Baptism is a work, and we are not saved by works.
Objection #3: Acts 2:38 really means we are baptized “because of” the remission of sins.
Objection #4: John 3:16 is the gospel in miniature, and it says nothing about baptism.
Objection #5: The thief on the cross was saved without being baptized.
Objection #10: All you need to do to be saved is just pray the sinner’s prayer.
Teaching a lesson on the subject of baptism is a daunting task. There is so much confusion in the religious world on the subject of baptism that it is hard to know where to begin.
As for the confusion in the world, I am reminded of what the famous journalist H.L. Menckin once said when he was asked whether he believed in infant baptism: “Believe in it? I’ve seen it done!”
As times it seems as if the entire denomination world is arrayed against us on this point, and perhaps that is part of God’s plan. If we are trying to appear distinctive in a world of religious confusion, then the subject of baptism is a good place for us to start. Why? Because almost everyone else disagrees with us!
Of course, losing a popular vote should not concern us one bit. Truth is not determined by popular vote. God’s word is truth - not man’s polling data!
Romans 3:4 — Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.
So where do we begin with a study of baptism?
It might surprise some of us, but we don’t have to begin in the New Testament. As with most things under the New Covenant, there is a foreshadowing of baptism under the Old Covenant.
In fact, when we studied the book of Zechariah recently we found a prophecy about baptism in Zechariah 13:1. And when we studied Psalm 110 recently, we again found a prophecy about baptism in verse 3.
But I think perhaps the best way to begin a study of baptism is to study some facts about baptism that are clearly taught in Scripture. So rather than start by looking at what the world says about baptism, let’s look at what God says — and then it will be much easier to see where the world has gone wrong on the subject.
If anyone here today or anyone known by someone here today believes he or she has been saved apart from baptism, please study this topic carefully and compare what we say today with the word of God. This is a vitally important subject.
How do we know that is a fact? Because Jesus told us it is a fact.
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
That verse is hard to misunderstand without expert help, and yet many today twist that verse completely around so that it instead says, “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.” That is not what Jesus said. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
But why doesn’t the second half of Mark 16:16 say that he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be damned? Because it is impossible to disbelieve and be baptized. There is another word for a baptism apart from belief - it’s called a bath. That’s all baptism is absent belief.
And what about those who only believe? James says that they have something in common with demons, who also believe and tremble (James 2:19). The Bible divides the world into two groups: believers and fools. So just being a believer is not a particularly high hurdle. What God wants is obedient believers.
But does baptism really save? Let's let Peter answer that question:
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
So the world says “he that believes and is saved shall be baptized,” but the Bible says the opposite.
And the world says baptism does not save us, but the Bible says the opposite.
And the world says belief alone is enough, but the Bible says the opposite.
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” If we could just convince people about the truth of this first fact, we could go a long way toward clearing up the confusion in the religious world on this subject.
Denominations belittle baptism, but what about the Bible? What role does baptism play in the Bible?
When we turn to the Bible, what we find is that baptism is a part of every conversion in the book of Acts. There is not a single example in the book of Acts of someone who was told to pray the Sinner’s Prayer, but instead there is example after example of people who were told to be baptized. For example:
And yet most denominational preachers never even mention baptism! Is any more evidence than that required to show that they are not proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ?
But maybe we need some more evidence - how about this? I have a New Testament annotated by someone who calls himself “J.G. Lawson, Evangelist.” At the beginning of the volume, he presents a list of subjects under the heading “Salvation,” where each subject is associated with a different letter of the alphabet. He then marks verses all throughout the Bible with those letters. When you turn to Acts 2:38, all you see is the letter “R” for “Repentance.” There is no letter “B” next to Acts 2:38. Why no letter “B” for Acts 2:38? Because there is no letter “B” in his list! He lists 16 topics about salvation, and not a one of them is baptism. In fact, he skips right over the letter "B" in his list! There is word for preaching like that - dishonest!
Denominational preachers may wish that baptism wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and they might even try to erase it as some have done — but God’s word cannot be erased. It is eternal, and it will outlast all attempts to silence it or twist it.
There is a great deal of confusion on this topic, but there doesn’t need to be. First, let’s establish the truth of the statement that there is one baptism.
Ephesians 4:4-6 - There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Again, that verse is hard to misunderstand. There is one baptism. Not zero as the so-called Evangelist Lawson teaches, and not more than one as others teach. There is one and only one baptism.
And I want us to notice something about the other items on that list from Ephesians 4: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, and one God. Of these other items on the list, there has always been one and only one and there will never be more than one. I think that is also true of the baptism of the New Covenant. As far as man's obedience is concerned under the New Covenant, there has always been just one baptism.
But, wait, you say. There must be more than one baptism. For example, John the Baptist mentions three baptisms in Matthew 3:11-12.
Matthew 3:11-12 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
As we will discuss in a moment, the word “baptize” just means “immerse,” and sometimes the Bible uses the word “immerse” in contexts other than the baptism of the Great Commission. That is what is happening here in Matthew 3. We will say more on this later, but I think the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3 is pointing to the events of Acts 2, and the baptism of fire is pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So if Ephesians 4 tells us there is one baptism, what is that one baptism? How could it be anything other than water baptism? We know that water baptism was practiced under the New Covenant (Acts 8:36), and once we find one baptism, Ephesians 4 tells us we should stop looking for another one because there isn’t another one. There is one baptism, and that one baptism is water baptism.
“There is only one baptism applicable to all men personally; there is only one baptism that men can administer and that men can actively participate in; there is only one baptism that men can personally receive; there is only one baptism that saves and adds people to the one body; there is only one baptism that is taught as part of the one faith - water baptism. That is the one baptism.”
Jesus has placed us all under the Great Commission.
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Those who ignore baptism in the Plan of Salvation are not following the Lord's Great Commission.
Christians are commanded by Jesus Christ to proclaim baptism, and that is exactly what the early church did.
How can anyone say they are following the Great Commission when they fail to proclaim baptism or when they belittle baptism? Baptism is central to the gospel; baptism is central to the plan of God.
Jesus did not say, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, telling them to recite the Sinner’s Prayer.”
Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
This point should be self-evident, but many today disagree with it by arguing that baptism after Pentecost is Holy Spirit baptism rather than water baptism.
But what does the Bible say? When we open God’s word, what we find after Pentecost is example after example of water baptism. And remember, there is only one baptism, so once we identify it there is no need to look for another one.
Baptism is called a burial and a resurrection in Romans 6:3-6 and in Colossians 2:12. A burial in water and then coming up out of that water is a perfect symbol for a burial and resurrection.
But what about Holy Spirit baptism - can that be a symbol for a burial and a resurrection? Do those who believe our baptism today is baptism in the Holy Spirit really believe that we come up out of the Holy Spirit? Does that make any sense? Wouldn't Romans 8:9 teach us that we would be lost rather than saved as soon as we came up out of the Holy Spirit? And how is the Holy Spirit a grave?
Baptism is likened to a washing or a bath in Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26. Baths are taken in water, and yet Peter had to explain in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism is not intended to cleanse the body (as with a normal bath) but rather to cleanse the conscience. Peter's argument makes no sense if baptism is anything other than water baptism. And, of course, the verse that immediately precedes 1 Peter 3:21 is focused on the water of the Great Flood, which verse 21 refers to as a “like figure.” They are alike because they both involve water.
In fact, baptism is illustrated in the New Testament by two Old Testament events.
In both events, deliverance was wrought by God through water!
And we know that water baptism requires an immersion into water. In fact, the Greek word "baptizo" means immersion.
Those who ask whether sprinkling is baptism are really asking whether sprinkling is immersion, and the answer is self-evident - it is not! Baptism is an immersion in water, not a sprinkling with water.
In Acts 1:5, we read: “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Doesn’t that mean that water baptism was left behind in favor of Holy Spirit baptism? No, it does not.
First, we know that water baptism was not left behind because we see water baptism over and over again in Acts and the epistles. We have already looked at those verses.
And, second, we know that Holy Spirit baptism did not replace water baptism because we see both occurring in Acts 2.
And third, the Bible makes a specific distinction between the baptism of the Great Commission and the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the people. We see that, for example, in Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5-6. Those are two separate and distinct events in the Bible.
But, wait, some will say. The Gentiles in Acts 10 had the Holy Spirit fall on them before their water baptism. Doesn’t that mean they were saved prior to their water baptism? Not at all. To respond to that argument, we need to consider Holy Spirit baptism a bit more closely.
Holy Spirit baptism occurred on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and after that it either occurred once again or it never occurred again depending on how we understand the events involving Cornelius found in Acts 10-11. I lean toward the latter view that Holy Spirit baptism was a one-time event. Why? Let’s look at the text involving Cornelius.
Acts 10:44-45 — While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And let's also back up to Acts 2 to note something important about the baptism of the Holy Spirit: it was for all flesh. That is what Peter said in Acts 2, quoting Joel 2.
Acts 2:17 - And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.
Now Acts 10:44 says that the Holy Spirit “fell” on Cornelius and his household, and verse 45 says that the Jewish believers were astonished because the gift of the Holy Ghost was “poured out” on the Gentiles. Does the “pouring out” in verse 45 refer to the “falling on” in verse 44 or to something else? That is our question.
If verses 44 and 45 are describing the same event, then this is the second and final example of a baptism in the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. And that view may very well be correct. If so, then the baptism in the Holy Spirit was repeated in Acts 10 for the express purpose of convincing Peter that the gospel was for all flesh.
But what if verses 44 and 45 are not describing the same event? What if, instead, the “pouring out” in verse 45 is referring all the way back to the original pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 that was prophesied in Joel 2, that was promised by John concerning Jesus in Matthew 3:11, that was promised by Jesus in Acts 1:5, and that happened on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2?
Is there any support for that view? Yes. In fact, the Greek verb translated “was poured” in verse 45 is in the perfect tense, which in Greek denotes a past completed action that results in a continued state of being. In other words, the action of pouring had been completed in the past but the results were continuing.
Also, note that verse 45 says that the Spirit has been poured out on the Gentiles - not just on Cornelius and his household. Peter seems to have finally realized that the “all flesh” in Joel 2 and Acts 2 really meant “all flesh,” both Jew and Gentile. And that pouring out on all flesh happened in Acts 2 not in Acts 10, even though Peter and the others did not realize it until Acts 10.
And why were the Jewish believers astonished? Certainly they were astonished because they realized that the “all flesh” in Acts 2 included Gentiles, but they were also no doubt astonished that the Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius prior to his being saved.
How do we know that Cornelius was not yet saved? When Acts 10 begins we meet Cornelius who, although a devout man, was not right with God (10:2). He was told to send for Peter, who would tell him what he needed to do (10:6; 11:14). The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius “as [Peter] began to speak” (11:15). What that means is that when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius, Peter had not yet had an opportunity to tell Cornelius what he needed to do to be saved. When Peter finally did proclaim that message, he told Cornelius to be baptized in water (10:47-48).
Why then did the Spirit fall on Cornelius? Peter tells us in Acts 11:16. The Spirit fell on Cornelius not for the sake of Cornelius but for the sake of Peter - so that Peter would remember the promise of Matthew 3:11 and the events of Acts 2 (referred to as “at the beginning” in 11:15). It was a sign for Peter and for those with Peter, all of whom were astonished at the sign.
One final issue is what is meant by the “gift” in Acts 11:17. This “gift” cannot be the promised gift in Acts 2:38 because that gift follows baptism and Cornelius had not yet been baptized. What then is the gift of Acts 11:17?
The key to answering that question is to recognize that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in one sense to everyone, but in another sense it is given only to those who obey the gospel.
We see this same distinction in Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit is poured out on “all flesh” in verse 17 but only those who obey the gospel are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit in verse 38. It is in this former sense from Acts 2:17 that Peter refers to the gift Acts 11:17. Cornelius received the spirit in the sense of Acts 2:38 only when he was baptized in Acts 10:47-48.
Should this distinction surprise us? No. We see the same distinction with the gift of God’s son. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son - that gift was to the whole world. But the latter half of John 3:16 tells us that not everyone in the world will receive that gift.
Likewise, the gift of God’s spirit was poured out on all flesh, but only those who obey the gospel will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And finally, here is one more point on this distinction between the one baptism and Holy Spirit baptism: When men are found baptizing people in the New Testament, they are always performing water baptism. Why? Because they can perform no other. There is no example anywhere of men performing any other baptism or being commanded to be baptized in any other way than in water. Holy Spirit baptism was a promise, not a command. Holy Spirit baptism was something God did to men. The baptism of the Great Commission is something that men are commanded to perform on other men. We cannot baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit; but we can baptize people in water.
Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism cleanses us from sin. We enter the waters of baptism stained with sin, but we arise from those waters spiritually purified. That is what the Bible tells us about baptism.
Acts 2:38 - Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Titus 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 6:11 - And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:22 - Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Ephesians 5:26 - That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.
So what then do those verses tell us about baptism? They tell us that baptism is the dividing line between being lost in sin and being saved by grace. It is at the point of baptism that we meet the blood of Christ and have our sins washed away.
Should that surprise us? Not at all. After all, how is baptism described in Romans 6? As a burial.
Romans 6:3-4 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Baptism is a burial in water. So here then is the ten million dollar question, and let me warn you, it is a toughie! Do we bury living people or dead people?
If we bury dead people, then how can anyone ever argue that we are already spiritually alive when we are plunged into the watery grave of baptism? As with any grave, we enter that grave dead, spiritually dead, but we arise from that grave a new creature who walks in newness of life. Baptism is where that transition occurs. Baptism is a spiritual resurrection.
I think everyone who calls himself or herself a Christian would at least agree that we should all be in Christ. All will agree that given the choice of being out of Christ or in Christ, we should all endeavor to be in Christ.
Given that starting point, the next question is immediate - how do we get into Christ? How do we go from being out of Christ to instead being in Christ?
If we do a word search in the Bible for the phrase “into Christ” or “into Jesus” we get exactly two verses. And what do those two verses tell us? What is the answer to our question of how to go from being out of Christ to instead being in Christ?
Romans 6:3 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Once again we have reached the same conclusion - baptism is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. Baptism is the dividing line between the power of darkness and the kingdom of Christ (Colossians 1:13).
And so what happens when we go from being out of Christ to instead being in Christ?
2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
That is precisely what Paul told us happens when we arise from the waters of baptism.
Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
The new life of a Christian begins at baptism, which is the precise moment we enter into Christ. Baptism may be a controversial subject, but is any of this really that hard to understand?
If this building was on fire, and if I pointed to an exit door and told you that safety was on the other side of that door, what would you do? And more to the point, when would you do it?
Would you perhaps conclude that you were already saved from the fire without ever leaving your seat? Would you perhaps believe what I said about the exit door, but then conclude that your belief alone was enough to save you? Would you look for some other door? Would you wait until tomorrow? Would you say, “I’ll flee from the fire next Sunday when I’m better dressed”?
I think we all know what we all would do. We would make our way as quickly as possible to the exit door and then go through that door so that we could be safe on the other side. And again, more to point here, we would get to that exit door as quickly as we possibly could.
I don’t think anyone here would say, “You know, I think I will wait for a more convenient time to find that exit from the fire.”
That reaction to finding the exit door is the same reaction we find in the New Testament when it comes to baptism. Gospel preaching prompts immediate baptisms!
If nothing else, the immediate response of those being baptized in the New Testament should be enough to tell us that baptism is essential to salvation.
In Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch heard the gospel in verse 35 and was baptized in verse 36. The Philippian Jailer in Acts 16:33 was baptized with his family in the middle of the night. Saul had been blind and without food or drink for three days, and yet what did he do first after hearing the gospel? He did not tarry, but was baptized at once to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).
Here is how one old-time preacher described it:
“One can look at every example of conversion in the Book of Acts and not find a soul eating a bite, drinking a drink, hitting a lick, or sleeping a wink between his hearing of the gospel and his being baptized. Why the urgency if baptism was not essential?"
Do we see any urgency like that in the denominational world? Isn’t that alone enough to let us know that the denominational world is not preaching the same message that was proclaimed in the book of Acts? Shouldn’t the same message prompt the same response from those who believe the message? And if the response is different, doesn’t that tell us the message is different?
This is the argument you will hear the most against the essentiality of baptism: baptism is a work, and we aren’t saved by works.
That argument is so flawed, it is hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with something I think we can all agree on: No one will ever be able to earn his own salvation. Salvation is a gift from God. The power to save man from sin is in the blood of Christ. We are saved by the grace of God (Luke 17:10; Romans 4:1-6; Romans 5:15-18).
I have never met anyone who believes that baptism is essential yet who disagrees with any of those statements, yet we are often accused of such. Saying that baptism is essential to our salvation and saying that our salvation is a free gift are not contradictory! They are both true!
Those who make this argument generally point to Ephesians 2:8-9. (“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”)
To respond to this argument, we need to consider two questions: What is saving faith? Is baptism a part of that saving faith or is baptism a meritorious work?
First, what is saving faith? Two verses often pitted against each other are found in James and in Romans:
James 2:24 - Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Romans 3:28 - Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (And Romans 4:4 - Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.)
Our goal is not to to decide whether Paul was right or James was right because we know they were both right. Our goal is to determine what they were both telling us how about the one saving faith of Ephesians 4:5 that was “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
Both James and Paul understood that faith requires action. Paul understood that the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. In fact, Paul referred to the “obedience of faith” at the beginning (1:5) and the end (16:26) of Romans.
James likewise was not saying that faith does not save, but was instead telling us what kind of faith saves. James was not adding anything to faith (as in faith plus works) but was telling us what a saving faith must include.
James was dealing with people who defined faith precisely the same way that the Faith Only advocates do today. Only believe, they say. And James reminds them that the devils believe and tremble! (James 2:19) And James 2:14 asks, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”
When we study what the Bible says on the subject of faith, we find that a saving faith has two ingredients: trust and obedience. A faith that lacks either one is not a saving faith, but is instead a dead faith.
Hebrews 11:30 tells us that “by faith, the walls of Jericho fell down.” When did those walls fall down? They collapsed after the people obeyed the command of God. They may have believed with all their heart that those walls would fall down after they marched around the city as God commanded, but the walls did not fall down just because they believed it would happen.
Is baptism a part of the one saving faith or is baptism a meritorious work?
Noah labored 100 years to save his household, and Hebrews 11:7 tells us that Noah built that ark by faith. Did Noah earn his salvation by building that ark? Would Noah have been saved had he not built that ark?
Hebrews 11:7 tells us that 100 years of ark building was faith. How then can anyone seriously label five seconds of obedience in baptism a meritorious work?
Those who believe they are saved from their sins at their baptism believe so because the Lord said so, and they take him at his word. That is called trust, not self righteousness.
Isn't this what Paul said in Titus 3:4-7?
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Notice that Paul there does not link baptism to our works of righteousness (which do not save) but rather to the mercy of God (which does save).
We are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), but we are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
I want us to next consider 10 arguments that are often raised against the essentiality of baptism, and I want us to consider why those arguments are wrong.
We looked at this argument above, and I won’t repeat everything we said there, but let’s briefly review why this very common argument is flat out wrong.
First, we all agree that no one will be saved by meritorious works.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
But is baptism a meritorious work? Are those who are baptized trying to earn their salvation through a meritorious work?
Why do I keep saying “meritorious” work? Because if we define “work” simply as anything done by man, then certainly baptism is a work under that definition. But belief is also a work under that definition.
John 6:28-29 - Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
And if someone is really going to take the position that man plays no role at all in his own salvation, then how are they going to explain Philippians 2:12? “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
And what do I mean by “meritorious” work? I’ll let Paul define that term for us.
Romans 4:4 - Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
A meritorious work is anything a person does trying to earn his salvation. It is a work that tries to turn grace into a debt that God owes us rather than a gift that God gives us.
The question is not whether baptism is a work. The question is whether baptism is a meritorious work, and again I will let Paul answer that question for us.
Titus 3:4-7 - But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Paul discusses baptism (the washing of regeneration), and Paul tells us that our baptism is not a work of righteousness (a meritorious work) that does not save. Instead, Paul tells us that our baptism is an appeal to the mercy of God, which does save.
And isn’t that exactly what Peter told us?
1 Peter 3:21 - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Those who believe they are saved from their sins at their baptism believe so because the Lord said so, and they take him at his word. That is called trust, not self righteousness.
Some argue that baptism in the New Testament parallels circumcision in the Old Testament. They then point to Romans 4:11 in an effort to show that we are saved prior to our baptism.
Romans 4:11 - And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
To see why that argument is wrong, we need to look at how baptism and circumcision are related.
Descendants of Abraham and Jacob were not brought into the old covenant by circumcision; they were physically born into that old covenant, and they were circumcised as a sign of their membership in that covenant.
Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Those who failed to be circumcised were said to have broken the covenant.
Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
What that means is that Jewish men were circumcised to remain under the old covenant, not to enter the old covenant.
In this sense, our baptism does not parallel circumcision under the old covenant, but rather parallels physical birth under the old covenant. Just as a Jew was physically born into the old covenant, we are spiritually born again into the new covenant when we are baptized for the remission of our sins.
But, you ask, what about Paul’s statements in Colossians 2?
Colossians 2:11-13 - In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.
In those verses Paul is comparing baptism with circumcision to show that our baptism is the moment when sins are put away. Far from saying that baptism is not essential to salvation, Paul is saying that it is essential. It is the moment when we put off the body of the sins of the flesh.
But does that mean Paul is contradicting himself between Romans 4 and Colossians 2? Of course not.
To understand what Paul is saying, we need to understand that baptism in the new covenant corresponds to two events in the old covenant. First, baptism corresponds to physical birth in the old covenant because we enter the new covenant at our baptism just as Jews entered the old covenant at their physical birth. But second, baptism corresponds to circumcision in the old covenant because we put off the old man at our baptism just as circumcision is described under the old covenant.
Deuteronomy 10:16 - Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Both of these comparisons can be pushed to false extremes. The comparison of baptism with physical birth does not justify infant baptism. Neither does the comparison of baptism with circumcision suggest that we are saved prior to our baptism. In fact, Colossians 2 uses circumcision to show that we put off the old man at the moment of our baptism – not before.
Some argue that Acts 2:38 should read “because of the remission of sins” rather than “for the remission of sin.” They say that the word “for” in Acts 2:38 should be read as it would read on a wanted poster - “Wanted for murder” (that is, wanted because of murder rather than wanted in order to commit a murder). That argument makes no sense grammatically or contextually.
One commentator makes a very telling comment about his approach to this verse.
A. T. Robertson: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.”
Robertson has that completely backwards, and his methodology explains why he misinterprets the verse. We should not approach the Bible as he does with our mind already made up and then twist the word to match what we already believe. Instead, we should let the Bible determine what we believe on a subject, and we should approach the Bible with honesty and humility.
The English may have some ambiguity about the meaning of the word “for,” but there is no ambiguity in the underlying Greek. The Greek word “eis” (pronounced “ace”), which is usually translated as “for, into, or unto” always means with a view to or toward and never means because of. It always takes the accusative case, which is the case of motion towards.
Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Romans 10:10 - With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
But we don’t need to rely on the underlying Greek to see that this objection against baptism is completely wrong. We can instead just look at the English translation in Acts 2.
According to this common objection against baptism, Peter’s listeners in Acts 2 were already saved by the time baptism appears in verse 38. If so, when were they saved?
We know that they were not saved in verse 36. Why? Because Peter charged then with crucifying Jesus, and if they had been forgiven by that time then Peter would not have laid that sin to their charge anymore.
And we know they were not saved at the end of verse 37? Why? Because they were sorrowing over their sin and asking what they needed to do. Had they been saved they would have been rejoicing like the Ethiopian eunuch rather than just sorrowing like Judas Iscariot.
So if they weren’t yet saved by the end of verse 37, then what else could verse 38 be telling them other than how to be saved? Peter’s listeners realized they were sinful, and they wanted to know what they had to do to get right with God. And Peter told them. They needed to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins - not because of the remission of their sins, but for the remission of their sins.
Some point to the absence of the word “baptism” in passages such as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13 and argue that this absence means that baptism is not necessary.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Acts 16:31 - And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
First, we should pause to note the irony of those who get their understanding of baptism from verses that don’t mention “baptism” while ignoring the many verses that do mention “baptism”!
In looking at these verses, we must take into account the spiritual condition of those who were being told how to be saved.
With regard to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, as far as Scripture reveals, this was the first time that the gospel had been preached on the continent of Europe. The jailer most likely had never heard anything about Jesus. In fact, most likely when he asked what he needed to do to be saved he was asking about his physical life rather than his spiritual life. Paul turned that earthly question into a heavenly inquiry.
Those who had not heard enough to believe, were told to believe (Acts 16:31). That, of course, is the first step. But James 2:19 tells us that belief is not the final step.
We must consider the context of these passages, and John 3:16 is a prime example. The belief in John 3:16 includes obedience. How do we know that? Because in addition to John 3:16 we also have John 3:14 and John 3:15!
John 3:14-15 - And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
When we turn to Numbers 21:9 to see what this belief involved, we find that unless the people looked at the serpent they would not be saved. Did they earn their salvation by looking? Hardly. But was looking required? Absolutely. The word “believe” in John 3 is used in place of the word “look” in Numbers 21. The belief in John 3:16 is an obedient belief just as those who believed in Numbers 21 were saved from those serpents by an obedient belief.
There are thousands and thousands of people today who are looking to a man who died on a cross for their salvation - but they are not looking at Jesus! Instead, they are relying on a thief who died next to Jesus on another cross!
Before we closely examine this very common objection, let’s start with something I think we can all agree on: this was an unusual situation. The thief was in no position to be baptized even if had wanted to or needed to. Those who want to stake their eternal destiny on the example of this thief should consider this first point very carefully. (And some might ask what if someone wanting to be baptized is killed on the way to the church building? We will look at that objection in a moment. Stay tuned.)
Also, for those staking their eternal destiny on this thief’s failure to be baptized, I have a question for them: how do you know that this thief was never baptized?
There is much more evidence that the thief was baptized than that he was not. Most assume that he was not baptized, but there is no basis for that assumption. The Bible certainly does not say that the thief was never baptized.
I think the thief likely had been baptized under the baptism of John, which under the old covenant was a baptism for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Why do I think that? One reason is because of the widespread coverage and acceptance of John’s baptism.
Acts 13:24 - When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Mark 1:5 - And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Also, we should note how informed this thief was about Jesus. He knew about the coming kingdom, and he knew that Jesus offered salvation.
Luke 23:42 - And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
The Bible is silent on the issue, and so we can’t say for sure either way, but the evidence weighs in favor of the thief having been baptized under the baptism of John.
But whether the thief was or was not baptized, the promises made by Jesus to the thief were made before Jesus died and before the first gospel sermon was preached in Acts 2. No one living today is similarly situated with this thief!
Also, we know that Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins.
Mark 2:10 - But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.
And we know that the new covenant was not in place when Jesus had this conversation with the thief.
Hebrews 9:16 - For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
While Jesus was alive, even on the cross, the Mosaic Covenant was still in effect. The old covenant did not become ineffective until Christ’s death (Colossians 2:14).
What that means is that the thief survived the Mosaic Covenant only briefly (John 19:31-33) and received his forgiveness prior to the death of Jesus and the beginning of the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15-20).
And here is an important question: Why did Jesus forgive the thief from the cross but not forgive those who crucified him from the cross? Instead, Jesus asked God to forgive them in Luke 23:34. Why?
Because, unlike this thief, those at the foot of the cross were not about to die. Instead, they would still be alive after Jesus’ ascension and would be alive to hear the first gospel sermon in Acts 2, at which time Peter directly charged them with killing the Son of God. Jesus’ prayer from the cross on their behalf was answered in Acts 2 when they heard and obeyed the gospel. God did not forgive them at the cross; God forgave them when they obeyed the gospel in Acts 2.
This is another objection that we considered above, and again I won’t repeat today everything we said there. But let’s summarize it. Our starting point is a statement by John in Matthew 3 and a statement by Jesus in Acts 1.
Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
Acts 1:5 - For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
What is the baptism of fire in Matthew 3? I think it is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
What is the baptism with the Holy Spirit? Peter answers that question in Acts 2.
Acts 2:16-17 - But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.
Not just on Jewish flesh, but on all flesh, Jew and Gentile. Just as God blessed the entire world with the gift of his Son, God blessed the entire world with the gift of his Holy Spirit.
Did Peter understand that back in Acts 2? It seems not. But Peter did come to realize the universal nature of the gospel in Acts 10 when he was given a sign involving Cornelius, the Gentile.
Again, we looked these events in detail above.
We know from Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism under the new covenant, and we know from Acts 8:36 that the one baptism is water baptism. Holy Spirit baptism was a one-time event that was prophesied in Joel 2 and that came to pass in Acts 2. The baptism that is commanded in Mathew 28:19 is water baptism. Holy Spirit baptism was a promise, not a command.
We mentioned this very common objection briefly in our study of the thief on the cross. Let’s look at it now in more detail. It can take various forms, all in the form of a hypothetical situation, and all starting with the phrase “what if.” Here are the two most common forms:
How do we respond to that argument?
First, I think we are being kind in calling this an “argument” because it is not much of one. You’ll notice that no scriptures are involved in making it. Instead, we are just dreaming up various hypothetical scenarios and asking how God would deal with them. If we are looking for a verse to counter this objection, then this might be a good place to start:
Matthew 4:7 - Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
And we might leave it there, but let’s look a bit more closely at the objection and how we can respond to those who make it.
The first thing we can point out to them is the obvious fact that their hypothetical situation is not their personal situation. They are very much alive and are surrounded by water. They have not died on the way to the baptistry. So if they are looking to that hypothetical for an excuse not to obey the command of God, then I don’t think that excuse will do much for them on the day if judgment.
Second, assuming there was such a situation (and I have never heard of an actual example), then for that unusual case, let’s just leave that unusual case in the hands of our all-knowing righteous judge. But however God would handle the situation of a man living in a desert who died on his way to locate water, one thing is certain - we could not then point to God’s judgment in that case as an excuse for our own failure to obey God’s command when we are surrounded by water on every side.
But third, in making that judgment I suspect one thing that God would consider is how many times that same person had heard and rejected the gospel call prior to finally expiring on the way to the baptistry. If I had a thousand opportunities to obey God and be buried with my Lord in baptism, but I rejected them all and then finally died while I was trying to obey the 1001st call, my appeal to God on judgment day would ring a bit hollow.
2 Corinthians 6:2 - Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
Baptism in the Bible is immediate. There is no delay. If I know I need to be baptized and I delay my obedience, then I am taking a tremendous risk. Now is the day of salvation! I should approach my own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12).
And fourth, we should ask those who make this objection why they make it only with regard to baptism. Why don’t they make the same objection with regard to repentance? The world is full of people living in sin but who intend to repent someday. And someday many may intend to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but not today. They are fully intending to do it, but they die before it happens. Following the same logic applied against baptism, wouldn’t it also follow that neither repentance nor confession is required?
We can sit around all day and dream up hypotheticals, but the words of Ananias in Acts 22:16 apply to everyone - “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
To see why this objection is wrong we need to look at what Paul said and look at why he said it. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul wrote, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Our first question is this: why did Paul turn his attention to baptism as part of a discussion involving divisions in the church.
Why was the church divided? There were no doubt multiple reasons, but one driving force behind the division seems to have arisen from the identity of the person who baptized them. Those baptized by Paul seem to have considered themselves the spiritual elite in the congregation. They seem to have been filled with pride at what they must have thought was quite an impressive spiritual pedigree!
Now with that background let’s think again about the verse we just read, and this time let’s read it in context (which is always a good idea!).
1 Corinthians 1:14-17 - I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
When read in context, these verses have always struck me as a bit humorous. Just think about the effect that Paul’s statement must have had on that divided congregation. Those baptized by Paul were filled with great pride at having been baptized by the great apostle, but it must have deflated them quite a bit to discover that Paul had no recollection of the event! I just picture them looking for their name somewhere in these verses, but not finding it.
That is the lesson that Paul is teaching here - not that it doesn’t matter whether you are baptized, but rather that it doesn’t matter who baptized you.
Paul is operating under the assumption here that they had all been baptized. Look at verse 13 - “was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” That their baptism had occurred was just as certain as that the crucifixion had occurred. They had all been baptized.
The issue there is an issue that I still see sometimes today. Do I have a greater status in the church because I was baptized by Brother So and So? The answer, of course, is no - and that is the point Paul is making here.
Christ did not send Paul to physically walk into the water and perform the physical act of baptism - but that does not mean that Christ did not send Paul to preach baptism because we know in fact that Christ did that very thing in Matthew 28:19, and we know that Paul preached baptism in Acts 16, for example.
Paul cannot possibly be contrasting baptism with preaching the gospel because it is not possible to preach the gospel without also preaching baptism. Philip, for example, preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35, and in the very next verse the eunuch wanted to be baptized. The very first gospel sermon in Acts 2 ended with Peter telling his listeners to be baptized for the remission of their sins.
To use 1 Corinthians 1:17 as an argument against the essentiality of baptism, one must lift that verse completely out of its context and then toss away everything else the Bible teaches on the subject of baptism. I fear that for some this verse has fallen into the category of verses described by Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 - verses “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
To those who say that baptism doesn’t make any sense, I will say first that they have a lot of company - but it is not company that they should want to have! Paul tells us that for many the cross itself doesn’t make any sense.
1 Corinthians 1:18 - For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Which group do want to be in? The group that views the gospel as foolishness and perishes? Or the group that views the gospel as the power of God and are saved?
And as for baptism not making any sense, Romans 6 explains what baptism depicts. Baptism is a burial in water by which I share in the death of Christ and am raised a new creature. How does that not make any sense? It makes perfect sense. It is a deliverance by water, something we see all throughout the Bible.
But what difference can it make in just getting wet? Naaman nearly made that same mistake in 2 Kings 5. And despite what countless denominational commentators have had to say about Naaman, the comparisons between those events in 2 Kings 5 and baptism are striking.
And yet what was Naaman’s initial attitude about obeying the command of God to wash and be clean? It didn’t make any sense.
2 Kings 5:11-12 - But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
Elisha’s command just didn’t make any sense to Naaman. How could washing in the Jordan make any difference? How could that cure his leprosy? And how is Naaman’s attitude in 2 Kings 5 any different from the attitude of those today who say that baptism doesn’t make any sense?
What I would say to such a person is exactly what Naaman’s servant said to him in verse 13.
2 Kings 5:13 - My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
And doesn’t that statement remind us immediately of another verse in the Bible?
Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Did Paul know all the ins and outs of baptism at that time? I doubt it, but Paul knew what he needed to know. Paul knew that he needed to be washed from his sins, and Paul knew that baptism was when that would happen. And Paul trusted God and obeyed God.
Those who say that baptism doesn’t make sense need to heed the examples of Scripture, and they need to quit relying on their own wisdom. God is not calling me to come up with my own gospel. God is calling me to trust him and obey his gospel.
For those who make this argument, I always feel like saying, “Wait! Salvation by works! Prayer is a work, and we are not saved by works!”
Why don't we ever hear that? It seems some in the denominational world are a bit inconsistent on the issue of works. After all, prayer is something we do whereas baptism is something that is done to us. Wouldn’t it seem that prayer is more of a work than baptism? And yet they never say the so-called sinner’s prayer is a work. They say that only about baptism.
The sinner’s prayer that you hear so much about today from denominational preachers does not appear anywhere in the Bible. There is not a single example anywhere in the Bible of anyone ever being told to pray the sinner’s prayer. Instead, when we open the Bible what we find is that every example of conversion in the book of Acts involved baptism. Shouldn’t that tell us something? Does anyone really think that men can just rewrite God's plan of salvation and then expect to be right with God on judgment day?
And when we study prayer, what we find are numerous examples showing that prayer alone does not save. Saul, for example, prayed following his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:11), but Saul was still in his sins when Ananias met him three days later (Acts 22:16). Cornelius prayed to God always, and yet there was something else Cornelius needed to do to be saved (Acts 10:2, 6, 33, 48).
If praying the sinner’s prayer is the way to salvation, then why didn’t Peter say that in Acts 2:38? Why didn’t Jesus command his followers to teach people the sinner’s prayer in Matthew 28:19? Why didn’t Annanias tell Paul to pray the sinner’s prayer in Acts 22:16? None of those verses mentions the sinner’s prayer, but they all mention baptism.
We have looked at 10 common objections against baptism, and we have shown how each objection is wrong.
If I have not been baptized for the remission of your sins, then:
And note that the command is to be baptized “for the remission of sins.” We must be immersed for the right reason. If when I was baptized I thought my sins had already been forgiven, then I was not baptized for the remission of my sins. Instead, all that happened to me was that I got wet.
A good illustration of modern attitudes toward baptism is found in The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, on page 22:
“It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was by ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denomination existed, that baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now it is different. . . .”
A good question is, “By what right and by whose authority is it different?” It cannot be by the authority of Scripture because Scripture reads the same now as it did in the first century. It must, therefore, be by the authority of man.
Jeremiah 17:5 - Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
If we trust God and obey God, then we will be baptized for the remission of our sins because that is what we find in the Word of God.
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:36 - And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Galatians 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Ephesians 4:5 - One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Colossians 2:12 - Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
1 Peter 3:21 - The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You Must Hear the Gospel
Romans 10:17
You must hear the gospel and then understand and recognize that you are lost without Jesus Christ no matter who you are and no matter what your background is. The Bible tells us that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Before you can be saved, you must understand that you are lost and that the only way to be saved is by obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:8) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
You Must Believe
Hebrews 11:6
You must believe and have faith in God because “without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6) But neither belief alone nor faith alone is sufficient to save. (James 2:19; James 2:24; Matthew 7:21)
You Must Repent
Acts 3:19
You must repent of your sins. (Acts 3:19) But repentance alone is not enough. The so-called “Sinner’s Prayer” that you hear so much about today from denominational preachers does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, nowhere in the Bible was anyone ever told to pray the “Sinner’s Prayer” to be saved. By contrast, there are numerous examples showing that prayer alone does not save. Saul, for example, prayed following his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:11), but Saul was still in his sins when Ananias met him three days later (Acts 22:16). Cornelius prayed to God always, and yet there was something else he needed to do to be saved (Acts 10:2, 6, 33, 48). If prayer alone did not save Saul or Cornelius, prayer alone will not save you. You must obey the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8)
You Must Confess
Romans 10:9
You must confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Romans 10:9-10) Note that you do NOT need to make Jesus “Lord of your life.” Why? Because Jesus is already Lord of your life whether or not you have obeyed his gospel. Indeed, we obey him, not to make him Lord, but because he already is Lord. (Acts 2:36) Also, no one in the Bible was ever told to just “accept Jesus as your personal savior.” We must confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but, as with faith and repentance, confession alone does not save. (Matthew 7:21)
You Must Be Baptized
Acts 2:38
Having believed, repented, and confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, you must be baptized for the remission of your sins. (Acts 2:38) It is at this point (and not before) that your sins are forgiven. (Acts 22:16) It is impossible to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ without teaching the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. (Acts 8:35-36; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21) Anyone who responds to the question in Acts 2:37 with an answer that contradicts Acts 2:38 is NOT proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ!
You Must Be Faithful Unto Death
Revelation 2:10
Once you are saved, God adds you to his church and writes your name in the Book of Life. (Acts 2:47; Philippians 4:3) To continue in God’s grace, you must continue to serve God faithfully until death. Unless they remain faithful, those who are in God’s grace will fall from grace, and those whose names are in the Book of Life will have their names blotted out of that book. (Revelation 2:10; Revelation 3:5; Galatians 5:4)