Objections to Baptism Answered
Objection #1: Baptism is a Work, and the Bible says we are saved by Faith Only.
Yes, we are indeed saved by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). However, we are not saved by “faith only.” Notice how James defeats the notion that “faith only” is sufficient:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “ Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself (James 2:14-17 Emphasis Mine)
Later James writes:
You see then a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James 2:24 NKJV Emphasis Mine).
Consider the Old Testament account of Naaman. The Old Testament record of his healing gives us an insightful picture of our spiritual healing in Christ. The writer of Second Kings introduces us to Naaman, with this impressive description:
Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man was also a valiant warrior, but he was a leper (2 Kings 5:1).
As powerful and mighty as Naaman was as a soldier, as respected as he was as a person, he suffered from leprosy. No doubt Naaman, and those around him, wondered how this great man could ever be healed from this devastating disease. Little did he know, a cure was available. All he needed was someone to tell him about it.
Now the Arameans had gone out in bands and had taken captive a little girl from the land of Israel; and she waited on Naaman’s wife. She said to her mistress, “I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:2-3).
We are not told the name of this little servant girl. Sadly, she is often forgotten in this familiar account of Naaman's healing. What compassion she demonstrated to Naaman, the man who had taken her from her home, and had made her a household servant in Aram. What an example of loving your enemy!
Based upon her suggestion, Naaman makes a journey to Israel to meet with the prophet Elisha. When he arrives, the powerful Naaman is disappointed at the lack of pomp and circumstance to celebrate his arrival.
So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha. Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “ Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean.” But Naaman was furious 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 wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. ’ (2 Kings 5:9-11).
How interesting that Elisha does not even come out to speak with Naaman. The prophet sends out a servant to give the instructions. Naaman needed to learn the importance of humility. The mighty man from Aram was furious at the simple instructions he was given. He was told the cure could be obtained by washing seven times in the river Jordan. Naaman was so angry he was ready to go home and remain a leper. Once again, some unnamed servants, helped Naaman gain some perspective.
Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, “My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean ’?” (2 Kings 5:13).
Their wise approach to Naaman finds him heading to the Jordan to follow the prophet's instructions. Naaman went to the Jordan in faith (trusting) that he would be healed. When he arrives, look what happens:
So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean (2 Kings 5:14).
Consider this important question: Was Naaman saved by faith or works? He went to the Jordan in faith, but had he refused to dip seven times, would he have been healed? No. All the faith in the world would not have cured Naaman until he obeyed the instructions. Naaman had to dip seven times. So, was he healed by works? Yes and no.
No, he was not saved by works in the sense of earning his healing. The healing was a matter of God's amazing grace. It was a gift. Naaman was not so good that God was a debtor to him. God made the offer, but Naaman had to show his faith. Yes, he was saved by works in that he was obedient to the instruction from God's prophet. James wrote of this kind of faith.
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20 Emphsasis Mine).
All we find in the account of Naaman holds true with one being healed today of the leprosy of sin. Scripture is clear in regards to the need for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21). Those today who would argue that baptism is not necessary, because it is perceived as a work, would have told Naaman all he needed was faith. But as James indicates, Naaman's faith alone would not have saved him.
Let me be clear, we are not saved by works, in the sense that we earn anything from God. Like Naaman’s healing, our salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). But we are saved by works, as James indicates, in the sense that obedience to the word of God is essential. God says, "He who has believed and has been baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). For those who say one must ONLY believe to be saved, consider these words of Jesus:
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. (John 6:29)
Belief is here called a “work.” If works of obedience cannot save us, than belief (being a work) cannot save!
Objection #2: If a Person were on their Death Bed, and Someone Preached Jesus to them, and they came to belief, God Would Not Condemn them because they would not have Opportunity to be Baptized. Therefore, Baptism Cannot be Necessary.
I have heard this objection used so many times. However, it fails to negate the necessity of baptism. For all those who believe a person need only believe in Jesus in order to be saved, consider this: Suppose the person on their death bed never has the opportunity to believe in Jesus. Will God still condemn them to eternal punishment? Based on the reasoning that baptism is not necessary because such a one would not have opportunity to be baptized, then belief in Jesus is not really necessary in order to be saved! One should be able to easily see the foolishness of this objection to baptism.
Objection #3: The Bible Does Not Say Baptism Saves.
For one to use this objection requires ignoring very clear Scriptures. Consider the following:
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 Emphasis Mine)
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16 Emphasis Mine)
Are these two verses not crystal clear as to the necessity of baptism? It is often argued by those opposing the essential nature of baptism, that Jesus only says, “…he who has disbelieved shall be condemned", and does not say, “he who has disbelieved and has not been baptism shall be condemned.” Such reasoning is a desperate attempt to deny the clear truth of what Jesus has instructed. Of course, Jesus didn’t mention “not being baptized” because one who disbelieves is NOT going to be baptized! Notice also the instruction of Jesus to His apostles in what we know as "The Great Commission."
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 Emphasis Mine)
Objection #4: We are Not Baptized for the Forgiveness of Sins, But Because Our Sins have Already Been Forgiven through Our Faith.
This objection is based on Acts 2:38. Take a look at the verse:
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 Emphasis Mine).
The objection to baptism being necessary for salvation is based on the word translated “for.” Those who object to the essential nature of baptism, say the word means “because.” In other words, Peter says, “Repent and be baptized because your sins have been forgiven.” However, when were their sins forgiven? It was not until later that they accepted the message preached by Peter (Acts 2:41).
The Greek word translated “for” is the Greek word eis. Notice how the word is used in some other New Testament passages:
For with the heart a person believes, resulting in (eis) righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in (eis) salvation (Romans 10:10 Emphasis Mine).
The words “resulting in” are the same Greek word translated “for” in Acts 2:38. This same word is also used in Matthew 26:28. Take a look…
For (gar) this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for (eis) forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28 Emphasis Mine)
The shedding of Jesus blood “resulted in” the available of forgiveness of sins, and was not shed “because of forgiveness of sins.”
Applying all of this to Acts 2:38 we would have this:
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (resulting in) the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 Emphasis Mine).
For those who say the Jews in Acts chapter two were baptized "because" their sins had "been" forgiven, why do we read later in the same chapter:
And with many others he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" (Acts 2:39).
If, as some insist, these people were already saved and had their sins forgiven, why does Peter keep exhorting them, saying to them that they "still" needed to be saved? Take a look at the next verse:
So then, those who received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Acts 2:40 Emphasis Mine).
The Scriptures are not hard to understand on this point. They are very clear, unless one has a false doctrine to support such as baptism not being essential.
Objection #5: John 3:16 says All one has to do is Believe in Order to Obtain Eternal Life. Nothing about being Baptized is Mentioned.
John 3:16 may be the most familiar Scripture in all the Bible. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Most people who call themselves Christians can quote this verse from memory. However, what many apparently seem to forget is the context of these words of our Savior. The words were spoken to a man named Nicodemus. Earlier in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus said:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you,unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5 Emphasis Mine)
Nicodemus questioned how one could be “born again.” Jesus was quick to explain the process. Being born again involves being born of water and Spirit. The same process holds true today!
Those who discount the essential nature of baptism do their best to explain away water baptism in this text. In light of all the examples of conversion in the New Testament, and the very specific instructions of Jesus to the apostles for them to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), it seems clear water baptism is in view here.
How is one born of Spirit? We believe this is by following the instructions of the inspired word of God. Peter put it like this:
For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God (1 Peter 1:23).
Remember, it was also Peter who wrote that baptism plays an essential part in our being saved (1 Peter. 3:21). To be born of Spirit is by obeying the word of God. What does the word of God tell us one must do in order to be saved? Hear (Rom. 10:17), Believe (John 3:16), Confess (Rom. 10:10), Repent, and Be Baptized (Acts 2:38).
The objection here is similar to the idea that all one has to do is call on the name of the Lord in order to be saved (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). What does calling on the name of the Lord involve? Ananias explained very clearly to Saul of Tarsus:
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:16 Emphasis Mine).
Objection #6: All You Have to do to be Saved is Say the Sinner’s Prayer.
We have all heard the so-called “Sinner’s Prayer” referenced by a friend, or some radio or television Bible teacher. At the close of a sermon, those who have responded to the invitation, are told they must say the sinner’s prayer, if they want to be saved. The preacher will then lead them in this prayer. Generally, it is something along these lines:
“Dear Jesus, I believe You died for me on the cross, and rose from the dead. Please forgive my sins. I promise to give my life to you. Amen.”
Having said this prayer, or something like it, the people are told, they are now saved, and are Christians. What these people are not told, is that the Bible does not mention any “sinner’s prayer.” On the contrary! What we find in the Bible are passages like these:
The Lord is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayers of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29 Emphasis mine).
He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, even his prayer is an abomination (Proverbs 28:9).
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear (Isaiah 59:1-2 Emphasis mine).
“We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him” (John 9:31 Emphasis mine).
Each of these texts indicate that God does not hear the prayers of sinners. When Israel, God’s own covenant people, were involved in sin, and had turned away from Him, He refused to hear their prayers (Isa. 59:1-2).
Prayer is a covenant blessing for those who have obeyed the Gospel, and are living faithful lives. David put it like this:
The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry (Psalm 34:15).
It is in Christ, and only in Christ, that we have access to our Great High Priest. As our High Priest, Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15). Those who are outside of Christ do not enjoy this special covenant-only relationship.
All this considered, God, being All-knowing, will certainly know if one outside of Christ is truly seeking the Truth (cf. Matt. 7:7-8). I believe God will help that individual find it (1 Tim. 2:3-4). Upon hearing the Truth, the person must do what the Scriptures tell them to do in order to be saved (Hear: Romans 10:17; Believe: John 3:16; 6:29; Repent: Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; Confess: Romans 10:10; Be Baptized: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21).
Those who insist on teaching people that salvation comes by simply saying the sinner’s prayer, need to offer either a command, example, or even an inference from the inspired Scriptures, that this is all that is required in order to be truly saved. Searching the Scriptures for any such proof texts will show that none exist.
The sinner’s prayer is no doubt the work of the devil, designed to deceive people into a false sense of security (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14; 1 Tim. 4:1). Let’s tell the lost the whole message of salvation (cf. Acts 5:20; 20:27). Obedience to the Gospel is the only “prayer” sinners have to escape eternal loss.
Objection #7: Paul said, "Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize."
A common argument against the essential nature of baptism, is based on some inspired words from Paul to the Corinthians. Paul wrote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (1 Corinthians 1:17 (Emphasis Mine).
Taken out of its context, this verse appears to say exactly what many hope and teach that it says: That baptism is not important or essential. If it were, Christ would have sent Paul to baptize. However, how are we to understand Paul when he says, "Christ did not send me to baptize"? As with any passage of Scripture, a consideration of the surrounding context will unlock the meaning. In this particular case, the context is very easy to see. Paul is addressing the Corinthians about the divisions that exist between them.
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Among the many issues Paul addresses with this first century congregation is the issue of division. The brethren at Corinth were dividing themselves based on various allegiances to teachers. The divisions were so strong that they were accompanied by quarrels with one another.
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:11-12).
Based on Paul's inspired description of the problem, it is not hard too imagine what was going on in Corinth. You had one contingent of brethren boasting their allegiance to Peter. Can you hear them? "Peter was one of the original apostles! You can't say that about Paul." Then those following Paul would shout back, "Paul started this local work. The man has traveled the world preaching Christ. He is much greater than Peter."
Regarding this foolish fussing, fighting, and allegiances to various teachers, Paul asks:
Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:13)
The last thing Paul wanted was brethren more devoted to himself than to Jesus. He reminds them that he did not die for them. They were not baptized in his name, so that they should be called, Paulites. This is important in understanding his statement regarding not being sent to baptize.
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (1 Corinthians 1:14-17).
When the context is understood, it is clear that Paul was not against baptism, nor believed it was not essential. The statement is made in regards to those who were more devoted to Paul than to Christ.
The book of Acts covers Paul's missionary journeys and his consistent practice of baptizing believers, as commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission (Matt.28:19). Notice the examples that are found:
Paul himself (Acts 9:18; 22:16)
The household of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15)
The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:31-33)
The Corinthians (Acts 18:8)
The Disciples of John (Acts 19:1-5)
A survey of Paul's letters will show the inspired apostle thought baptism was very essential to salvation.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).
Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:12).
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27).
These passages hardly sound like they were penned by a man who did not think being baptized was essential to salvation. Paul practiced and taught baptism. His preaching and letters are clear: We are baptized into Christ. If it takes baptism to get into Christ, then the essential nature of it should be abundantly clear.
Objection #8: The Thief on the Cross
Another common objection that is often raised when discussing the essential nature of baptism is the thief on the cross. It is argued that the thief was saved without being baptized, so how could baptism be necessary? There are a number of significant ways to respond to this objection with Scripture.
First, let's consider this man we know as the thief on the cross. The statement he makes to Jesus shows that he had some prior knowledge of Jesus. He says, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). The fact that he was being crucified shows that in all likelihood he was a Jew, considering Romans would not be crucified by Romans. This explains how he knew something of the coming kingdom and Jesus' association to it. Matthew tells us that all Judea and the region of the Jordan were going out to be baptized by John (Matt. 3:5-6). It is very likely that this man was one of the many who were baptized by John. If so, he heard John's message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Based on this information from the Bible, for one to conclude as a matter of fact, that this man had never been baptized is a great assumption.
Another critical point to illustrate to those objecting to baptism based on the thief on the cross, is the need to "accurately handle" the Scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15). This means, in any interpretation or application of the Word of God, we must know who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, what they are speaking about, and when they are speaking. As an example, Noah was told to build an ark. This instruction obviously does not apply to us. The Jews were given instructions regarding animal sacrifices. Such instruction does not apply to us. In the case of the thief on the cross, he lived under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant does NOT apply today.
The essential need for baptism is part of the New Covenant. This essential need is seen in numerous passages of Scripture (cf. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21). Since the thief was living under the Old Covenant, there was no need for him to be baptized with New Covenant baptism. In fact, it would been impossible for this man to be baptized into Christ! Notice what Paul wrote about being baptized into Christ:
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4 Emphasis Mine).
Baptism is a likeness to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus died before this man would have had a chance to be baptized into His death (John 19:32-33). In another text, Paul illustrates how essential Christ's resurrection is to baptism, stating that if Jesus had not been raised form the dead we would still be in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). It was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that put the Old Covenant to an end, and brought to pass the New Covenant:
For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives (Hebrews 9:16-17).
Though the thief was alive for a brief few moments after Jesus had died, the terms of the New Covenant would not be preached till after the man's death. We see the preaching of the New Covenant beginning in Acts chapter two. As you can hopefully see, any objection to baptism based upon the thief on the cross, does not hold up to the test of Scripture.
Yes, we are indeed saved by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). However, we are not saved by “faith only.” Notice how James defeats the notion that “faith only” is sufficient:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “ Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself (James 2:14-17 Emphasis Mine)
Later James writes:
You see then a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James 2:24 NKJV Emphasis Mine).
Consider the Old Testament account of Naaman. The Old Testament record of his healing gives us an insightful picture of our spiritual healing in Christ. The writer of Second Kings introduces us to Naaman, with this impressive description:
Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man was also a valiant warrior, but he was a leper (2 Kings 5:1).
As powerful and mighty as Naaman was as a soldier, as respected as he was as a person, he suffered from leprosy. No doubt Naaman, and those around him, wondered how this great man could ever be healed from this devastating disease. Little did he know, a cure was available. All he needed was someone to tell him about it.
Now the Arameans had gone out in bands and had taken captive a little girl from the land of Israel; and she waited on Naaman’s wife. She said to her mistress, “I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:2-3).
We are not told the name of this little servant girl. Sadly, she is often forgotten in this familiar account of Naaman's healing. What compassion she demonstrated to Naaman, the man who had taken her from her home, and had made her a household servant in Aram. What an example of loving your enemy!
Based upon her suggestion, Naaman makes a journey to Israel to meet with the prophet Elisha. When he arrives, the powerful Naaman is disappointed at the lack of pomp and circumstance to celebrate his arrival.
So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha. Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “ Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean.” But Naaman was furious 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 wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. ’ (2 Kings 5:9-11).
How interesting that Elisha does not even come out to speak with Naaman. The prophet sends out a servant to give the instructions. Naaman needed to learn the importance of humility. The mighty man from Aram was furious at the simple instructions he was given. He was told the cure could be obtained by washing seven times in the river Jordan. Naaman was so angry he was ready to go home and remain a leper. Once again, some unnamed servants, helped Naaman gain some perspective.
Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, “My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean ’?” (2 Kings 5:13).
Their wise approach to Naaman finds him heading to the Jordan to follow the prophet's instructions. Naaman went to the Jordan in faith (trusting) that he would be healed. When he arrives, look what happens:
So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean (2 Kings 5:14).
Consider this important question: Was Naaman saved by faith or works? He went to the Jordan in faith, but had he refused to dip seven times, would he have been healed? No. All the faith in the world would not have cured Naaman until he obeyed the instructions. Naaman had to dip seven times. So, was he healed by works? Yes and no.
No, he was not saved by works in the sense of earning his healing. The healing was a matter of God's amazing grace. It was a gift. Naaman was not so good that God was a debtor to him. God made the offer, but Naaman had to show his faith. Yes, he was saved by works in that he was obedient to the instruction from God's prophet. James wrote of this kind of faith.
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20 Emphsasis Mine).
All we find in the account of Naaman holds true with one being healed today of the leprosy of sin. Scripture is clear in regards to the need for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21). Those today who would argue that baptism is not necessary, because it is perceived as a work, would have told Naaman all he needed was faith. But as James indicates, Naaman's faith alone would not have saved him.
Let me be clear, we are not saved by works, in the sense that we earn anything from God. Like Naaman’s healing, our salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). But we are saved by works, as James indicates, in the sense that obedience to the word of God is essential. God says, "He who has believed and has been baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). For those who say one must ONLY believe to be saved, consider these words of Jesus:
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. (John 6:29)
Belief is here called a “work.” If works of obedience cannot save us, than belief (being a work) cannot save!
Objection #2: If a Person were on their Death Bed, and Someone Preached Jesus to them, and they came to belief, God Would Not Condemn them because they would not have Opportunity to be Baptized. Therefore, Baptism Cannot be Necessary.
I have heard this objection used so many times. However, it fails to negate the necessity of baptism. For all those who believe a person need only believe in Jesus in order to be saved, consider this: Suppose the person on their death bed never has the opportunity to believe in Jesus. Will God still condemn them to eternal punishment? Based on the reasoning that baptism is not necessary because such a one would not have opportunity to be baptized, then belief in Jesus is not really necessary in order to be saved! One should be able to easily see the foolishness of this objection to baptism.
Objection #3: The Bible Does Not Say Baptism Saves.
For one to use this objection requires ignoring very clear Scriptures. Consider the following:
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 Emphasis Mine)
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16 Emphasis Mine)
Are these two verses not crystal clear as to the necessity of baptism? It is often argued by those opposing the essential nature of baptism, that Jesus only says, “…he who has disbelieved shall be condemned", and does not say, “he who has disbelieved and has not been baptism shall be condemned.” Such reasoning is a desperate attempt to deny the clear truth of what Jesus has instructed. Of course, Jesus didn’t mention “not being baptized” because one who disbelieves is NOT going to be baptized! Notice also the instruction of Jesus to His apostles in what we know as "The Great Commission."
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 Emphasis Mine)
Objection #4: We are Not Baptized for the Forgiveness of Sins, But Because Our Sins have Already Been Forgiven through Our Faith.
This objection is based on Acts 2:38. Take a look at the verse:
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 Emphasis Mine).
The objection to baptism being necessary for salvation is based on the word translated “for.” Those who object to the essential nature of baptism, say the word means “because.” In other words, Peter says, “Repent and be baptized because your sins have been forgiven.” However, when were their sins forgiven? It was not until later that they accepted the message preached by Peter (Acts 2:41).
The Greek word translated “for” is the Greek word eis. Notice how the word is used in some other New Testament passages:
For with the heart a person believes, resulting in (eis) righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in (eis) salvation (Romans 10:10 Emphasis Mine).
The words “resulting in” are the same Greek word translated “for” in Acts 2:38. This same word is also used in Matthew 26:28. Take a look…
For (gar) this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for (eis) forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28 Emphasis Mine)
The shedding of Jesus blood “resulted in” the available of forgiveness of sins, and was not shed “because of forgiveness of sins.”
Applying all of this to Acts 2:38 we would have this:
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (resulting in) the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 Emphasis Mine).
For those who say the Jews in Acts chapter two were baptized "because" their sins had "been" forgiven, why do we read later in the same chapter:
And with many others he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" (Acts 2:39).
If, as some insist, these people were already saved and had their sins forgiven, why does Peter keep exhorting them, saying to them that they "still" needed to be saved? Take a look at the next verse:
So then, those who received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Acts 2:40 Emphasis Mine).
The Scriptures are not hard to understand on this point. They are very clear, unless one has a false doctrine to support such as baptism not being essential.
Objection #5: John 3:16 says All one has to do is Believe in Order to Obtain Eternal Life. Nothing about being Baptized is Mentioned.
John 3:16 may be the most familiar Scripture in all the Bible. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Most people who call themselves Christians can quote this verse from memory. However, what many apparently seem to forget is the context of these words of our Savior. The words were spoken to a man named Nicodemus. Earlier in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus, Jesus said:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you,unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5 Emphasis Mine)
Nicodemus questioned how one could be “born again.” Jesus was quick to explain the process. Being born again involves being born of water and Spirit. The same process holds true today!
Those who discount the essential nature of baptism do their best to explain away water baptism in this text. In light of all the examples of conversion in the New Testament, and the very specific instructions of Jesus to the apostles for them to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), it seems clear water baptism is in view here.
How is one born of Spirit? We believe this is by following the instructions of the inspired word of God. Peter put it like this:
For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God (1 Peter 1:23).
Remember, it was also Peter who wrote that baptism plays an essential part in our being saved (1 Peter. 3:21). To be born of Spirit is by obeying the word of God. What does the word of God tell us one must do in order to be saved? Hear (Rom. 10:17), Believe (John 3:16), Confess (Rom. 10:10), Repent, and Be Baptized (Acts 2:38).
The objection here is similar to the idea that all one has to do is call on the name of the Lord in order to be saved (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). What does calling on the name of the Lord involve? Ananias explained very clearly to Saul of Tarsus:
Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:16 Emphasis Mine).
Objection #6: All You Have to do to be Saved is Say the Sinner’s Prayer.
We have all heard the so-called “Sinner’s Prayer” referenced by a friend, or some radio or television Bible teacher. At the close of a sermon, those who have responded to the invitation, are told they must say the sinner’s prayer, if they want to be saved. The preacher will then lead them in this prayer. Generally, it is something along these lines:
“Dear Jesus, I believe You died for me on the cross, and rose from the dead. Please forgive my sins. I promise to give my life to you. Amen.”
Having said this prayer, or something like it, the people are told, they are now saved, and are Christians. What these people are not told, is that the Bible does not mention any “sinner’s prayer.” On the contrary! What we find in the Bible are passages like these:
The Lord is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayers of the righteous (Proverbs 15:29 Emphasis mine).
He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, even his prayer is an abomination (Proverbs 28:9).
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear (Isaiah 59:1-2 Emphasis mine).
“We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him” (John 9:31 Emphasis mine).
Each of these texts indicate that God does not hear the prayers of sinners. When Israel, God’s own covenant people, were involved in sin, and had turned away from Him, He refused to hear their prayers (Isa. 59:1-2).
Prayer is a covenant blessing for those who have obeyed the Gospel, and are living faithful lives. David put it like this:
The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry (Psalm 34:15).
It is in Christ, and only in Christ, that we have access to our Great High Priest. As our High Priest, Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15). Those who are outside of Christ do not enjoy this special covenant-only relationship.
All this considered, God, being All-knowing, will certainly know if one outside of Christ is truly seeking the Truth (cf. Matt. 7:7-8). I believe God will help that individual find it (1 Tim. 2:3-4). Upon hearing the Truth, the person must do what the Scriptures tell them to do in order to be saved (Hear: Romans 10:17; Believe: John 3:16; 6:29; Repent: Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; Confess: Romans 10:10; Be Baptized: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21).
Those who insist on teaching people that salvation comes by simply saying the sinner’s prayer, need to offer either a command, example, or even an inference from the inspired Scriptures, that this is all that is required in order to be truly saved. Searching the Scriptures for any such proof texts will show that none exist.
The sinner’s prayer is no doubt the work of the devil, designed to deceive people into a false sense of security (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14; 1 Tim. 4:1). Let’s tell the lost the whole message of salvation (cf. Acts 5:20; 20:27). Obedience to the Gospel is the only “prayer” sinners have to escape eternal loss.
Objection #7: Paul said, "Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize."
A common argument against the essential nature of baptism, is based on some inspired words from Paul to the Corinthians. Paul wrote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (1 Corinthians 1:17 (Emphasis Mine).
Taken out of its context, this verse appears to say exactly what many hope and teach that it says: That baptism is not important or essential. If it were, Christ would have sent Paul to baptize. However, how are we to understand Paul when he says, "Christ did not send me to baptize"? As with any passage of Scripture, a consideration of the surrounding context will unlock the meaning. In this particular case, the context is very easy to see. Paul is addressing the Corinthians about the divisions that exist between them.
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Among the many issues Paul addresses with this first century congregation is the issue of division. The brethren at Corinth were dividing themselves based on various allegiances to teachers. The divisions were so strong that they were accompanied by quarrels with one another.
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:11-12).
Based on Paul's inspired description of the problem, it is not hard too imagine what was going on in Corinth. You had one contingent of brethren boasting their allegiance to Peter. Can you hear them? "Peter was one of the original apostles! You can't say that about Paul." Then those following Paul would shout back, "Paul started this local work. The man has traveled the world preaching Christ. He is much greater than Peter."
Regarding this foolish fussing, fighting, and allegiances to various teachers, Paul asks:
Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:13)
The last thing Paul wanted was brethren more devoted to himself than to Jesus. He reminds them that he did not die for them. They were not baptized in his name, so that they should be called, Paulites. This is important in understanding his statement regarding not being sent to baptize.
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (1 Corinthians 1:14-17).
When the context is understood, it is clear that Paul was not against baptism, nor believed it was not essential. The statement is made in regards to those who were more devoted to Paul than to Christ.
The book of Acts covers Paul's missionary journeys and his consistent practice of baptizing believers, as commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission (Matt.28:19). Notice the examples that are found:
Paul himself (Acts 9:18; 22:16)
The household of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15)
The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:31-33)
The Corinthians (Acts 18:8)
The Disciples of John (Acts 19:1-5)
A survey of Paul's letters will show the inspired apostle thought baptism was very essential to salvation.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).
Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:12).
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27).
These passages hardly sound like they were penned by a man who did not think being baptized was essential to salvation. Paul practiced and taught baptism. His preaching and letters are clear: We are baptized into Christ. If it takes baptism to get into Christ, then the essential nature of it should be abundantly clear.
Objection #8: The Thief on the Cross
Another common objection that is often raised when discussing the essential nature of baptism is the thief on the cross. It is argued that the thief was saved without being baptized, so how could baptism be necessary? There are a number of significant ways to respond to this objection with Scripture.
First, let's consider this man we know as the thief on the cross. The statement he makes to Jesus shows that he had some prior knowledge of Jesus. He says, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). The fact that he was being crucified shows that in all likelihood he was a Jew, considering Romans would not be crucified by Romans. This explains how he knew something of the coming kingdom and Jesus' association to it. Matthew tells us that all Judea and the region of the Jordan were going out to be baptized by John (Matt. 3:5-6). It is very likely that this man was one of the many who were baptized by John. If so, he heard John's message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Based on this information from the Bible, for one to conclude as a matter of fact, that this man had never been baptized is a great assumption.
Another critical point to illustrate to those objecting to baptism based on the thief on the cross, is the need to "accurately handle" the Scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15). This means, in any interpretation or application of the Word of God, we must know who is speaking, to whom they are speaking, what they are speaking about, and when they are speaking. As an example, Noah was told to build an ark. This instruction obviously does not apply to us. The Jews were given instructions regarding animal sacrifices. Such instruction does not apply to us. In the case of the thief on the cross, he lived under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant does NOT apply today.
The essential need for baptism is part of the New Covenant. This essential need is seen in numerous passages of Scripture (cf. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21). Since the thief was living under the Old Covenant, there was no need for him to be baptized with New Covenant baptism. In fact, it would been impossible for this man to be baptized into Christ! Notice what Paul wrote about being baptized into Christ:
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4 Emphasis Mine).
Baptism is a likeness to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus died before this man would have had a chance to be baptized into His death (John 19:32-33). In another text, Paul illustrates how essential Christ's resurrection is to baptism, stating that if Jesus had not been raised form the dead we would still be in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). It was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that put the Old Covenant to an end, and brought to pass the New Covenant:
For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives (Hebrews 9:16-17).
Though the thief was alive for a brief few moments after Jesus had died, the terms of the New Covenant would not be preached till after the man's death. We see the preaching of the New Covenant beginning in Acts chapter two. As you can hopefully see, any objection to baptism based upon the thief on the cross, does not hold up to the test of Scripture.