Did Jesus Command Baptism in Order to be Saved?

[Thinking Skins]

Did Jesus Command Baptism in Order to be Saved? A commentary on John 3:5-7

by Rich Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/baptism.html

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 3:5)

Many Christians have claimed that one cannot be saved without being baptized and cite the verse above as evidence. Although baptism is an ordinance of the Christian Church and a command given to those who convert non-believers, Jesus never commanded baptism in order to be saved. Let us look at this verse in context to try to figure out what "born of water" actually refers to.

Let us start by checking out the entire verse in context:

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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.' (John 3:3-7)

There are two conditions to enter the kingdom of God. Which comes first? "Born of water," according to the verse. Does baptism precede being born of the Spirit in the believer? Jesus clarifies what He means in the next verse, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Being born of water is referring to being born physically (the water referring to the amniotic fluid that breaks as one is born). This is why He said "You must be born again." The first birth is the birth from water, or the flesh. The second is to be born of the Spirit, which is of God. I think it is pretty clear that the verse does not refer to baptism, but to the first birth. At this point, the "entering" is for anyone who is born again (i.e., born of the Spirit).

Let's go over the specific text in question. Verse 3 says that one must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Verse 5 says that one must be born of water AND the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. The text tells us that these requirements are one and the same.

In stating that one must be born again, Jesus referred to 2 births - the first the physical birth on Earth. Nicodemus recognized this as the first requirement, since he stated that a man cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb (John 3:4). In the very next statement he explains the two kinds of birth. "Born of water" refers to the physical birth, whereas "born of the Spirit" refers to being "born again" or the second birth. In the next verse, Jesus clarifies the statement explaining that "born of water" refers to being "born of flesh." Jesus was clear and direct. There is no mention of baptism anywhere. "Born of water" never refers to baptism in any other verse in the entire Bible. The Greek word used is "hudwr" (Strong's number G5204). The Greek word for baptism is "baptisma" (Strong's number G908). If Jesus had wanted to refer to baptism, He would have used this word. In fact, the word (or a variation of it) occurs 112 times in the New Testament.

Why did Jesus use different verbs, "see" in verse 3 vs. "enter" in verse 5? It is a common practice in teaching to use different words to explain the same concept. By doing so, one keeps the attention of your student. And Jesus was an excellent teacher, who used this technique often. Take a look at another teaching about the kingdom of God:

But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all." (Luke 18:16-17)

In the first verse, Jesus says that the kingdom of God "belongs" to children. In the second, He says that one must receive the kingdom as a child in order to "enter." Is belonging and entering different? Yes, these are different verbs, but the point is the same. Likewise, one cannot enter the kingdom of God without seeing it.

Jesus often used multiple parables to illustrate the same spiritual truths. You can confirm this yourself by reading virtually any chapter in any of the gospels.

A general observation of the ministry of Jesus Christ reveals that He never told anyone to be baptized in any of the gospel accounts. His discussion with numerous people about how to have a relationship with God have been recorded in the gospels, but in none of those accounts does Jesus tell anyone that they must be baptized. If baptism were crucial to one's salvation, I would think that He would have mentioned it at least once! Was Jesus negligent in not explaining this to all the people He talked to in the gospels? I don't think so! In addition, Jesus never baptized anyone to our knowledge (John 4:2). In fact, it seems that He sent the people off after being healed without baptism. Obviously, He gave the command to His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism is an outward expression of what has already occurred within an individual. Jesus didn't need to see that outward expression of an individual's conversion, since, being God, He already knew what was in their heart.

In contrast, Jesus talked very often about faith - at least 27 examples given in the gospels: Matthew 8:10, Matthew 8:26, Matthew 9:2, Matthew 9:22, Matthew 9:29, Matthew 14:31, Matthew 15:28, Matthew 16:8, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 2:5, Mark 4:40, Mark 5:34, Mark 10:52, Mark 11:22, Luke 5:20, Luke 7:9, Luke 7:50, Luke 8:25, Luke 8:48, Luke 12:28, Luke 17:5, Luke 17:6, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:8, Luke 18:42, Luke 22:32. Could it be that faith is the key to having a relationship with God and not baptism?

The idea that baptism is required for justification perpetuates the Jewish notion of salvation through works of the law, which were repudiated by the apostles (Acts 10:44-11:18, 15:1-11, Romans 3:30, Galatians 2, Galatians 5, Philippians) and the early church fathers. Yes, I believe one should be baptized in obedience to Jesus' command. However, we should also love our neighbor for the same reason. I know that we do not keep this entire command, because only God can demonstrate this kind of unconditional love. Does this mean that we will lose our salvation? No!

We are justified on the basis of faith alone (true faith - not an uncommitted confession of some belief). If anyone is trusting in any work of the flesh, then they put themselves under the entire law of God and will be held accountable to keep it all! (James 2:10, Galatians 3:10, Romans 2:12, 3:20)

[BigMike619]

Wow...interesting.

[revallenjr]

I thought you were like asking a question. I came into this thread all ready to tell you but you answered yourself before I could.

[jpillian]

My take: it is not a requirement for salvation.

The thief on the cross beside Jesus -- didn't Christ say to him, "Today you will be with me in paradise?" Not -- "Quick, someone get some water up to this man, my grace will not be sufficient!"

[twa]

I thought you were like asking a question. I came into this thread all ready to tell you but you answered yourself before I could.

:laugh: QFT

[Thinking Skins]

I thought you were like asking a question. I came into this thread all ready to tell you but you answered yourself before I could.

Well, I posted it cause I'm interested in the different answers people have. This is just one guy's opinion of it that I hadn't heard before.

[dcnativenerd]

Well, that pretty much breaks it down.

Interesting read. Thank you much.

[BigMike619]

oops..........

[RyansRangers]

From what I know growing up in a Born again christian church, baptism is a way to pronounce to the world that you are Saved. Bible Christians dont baptize at birth they wait for the person to be old enough to make thier own decision. Catholics baptize at christening.(sp?)

[BigMike619]

No unclean thing can dwell within the kingdom of the Lord says Jesus. The reason the guy on the cross next to him was able to walk into Heaven is because he announced that he had faith and he was pretty much next to the freaking Savior!!

And what Ryan is speaking of is called "free will" and most Christians believe that occurs at age 11. Baptizing a baby at birth is strictly for the parents since the Lord believes that children are clean and free from sin

[10fttall]

No it's not required. It should be desired by anyone who is given a proper overview in the Christian faith. We have examples galore of people "believing and being baptized," and Jesus himself set the example as well. Interestingly enough, we don't see anyone baptizing a baby...hmmm.

[Thinking Skins]

No unclean thing can dwell within the kingdom of the Lord says Jesus. The reason the guy on the cross next to him was able to walk into Heaven is because he announced that he had faith and he was pretty much next to the freaking Savior!!

And what Ryan is speaking of is called "free will" and most Christians believe that occurs at age 11. Baptizing a baby at birth is strictly for the parents since the Lord believes that children are clean and free from sin

Thats interesting because I remember getting into a few discussions about whether babies went to hell or not. People were talking about babies getting 'original sin' from their fathers. And they say that Jesus didn't have this original sin because his father is God.

And whats so special about 11? I've never heard that one before...

[ldysknzfn1]

Lord believes that children are clean and free from sin

Well this is interesting. I've always been told that we're born into sin due to Adam's fall. But a child's sin is carried by the parents until the age of 12. Although my church recognizes children under the age of 12 that want to be saved and ask Jesus to come into their hearts. We had a little girl just 2 weeks ago that came forth at altar call...she is 6 y/o and will be baptized next month. So maybe I need to ask this question of my pastor about children and their sinful or sinless nature.

[twa]

As far as children, my denomination believes in the "age of accountability"(most all do) which is when they are capable of defining right and wrong and understanding their need for salvation.(I probably did not explain that well)

I never heard the eleven bit either...curious if that is just a general or firm belief for some.

I don't think age is as relevant as understanding and is different for all.

[ldysknzfn1]

As far as children, my denomination believes in the "age of accountability"(most all do) which is when they are capable of defining right and wrong and understanding their need for salvation.(I probably did not explain that well)

I never heard the eleven bit either...curious if that is just a general or firm belief for some.

I don't think age is as relevant as understanding and is different for all.

Okie dokie on the age of accountability. But aren't we supposed to all be born into a sinful nature? Or is that just a baptist thing I was told when I was a kid to scare the bejesus outta me..:laugh:

[Jumbo]

While I have been through the main topic in the past, I am find the discussion of the age of accountability and the different perceptions of it interesting. The selection of the age (11-12; perhaps others) is also interesting. I has remembered something about "child" might mean up to 19-20, I believe attributed to deductions made from comments in Numbers and Deutoronomy. But I will this that to the experts. To the best I knew, no age was ever clearly stated in the Bible, is it is sorta "roll your own."

[twa]

Okie dokie on the age of accountability. But aren't we supposed to all be born into a sinful nature? Or is that just a baptist thing I was told when I was a kid to scare the bejesus outta me..:laugh:

:laugh: ...I had one of those fire and brimstone preachers as a kid too.

It is a interesting study since age of accountability is not clearly defined or mentioned in scripture.(and I probably shouldn't have said most all subscribe to it).

Perhaps the best evidence is children or infants are never mentioned as being in hell.

We are born as carriers of the sin nature(through blood,from the father as evidenced by Jesus's lack of sin nature),but until it becomes capacity for moral reasoning at some point I feel they are covered by grace

This is just one illustration of the basis for the belief and is close to my beliefs

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1679

"Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers." (Deuteronomy 1:35). But God specifically exempted young children and infants from this condemnation -- and He even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it" (Deuteronomy 1:39). These little ones were not punished for their parents' sins, but were accepted by God into the promised land. I believe that this offers a sound basis for our confidence that God deals with young children differently than He deals with those who are capable of deliberate and conscious sin.

[ldysknzfn1]

:laugh: ...I had one of those fire and brimstone preachers as a kid too.

It is a interesting study since age of accountability is not clearly defined or mentioned in scripture.(and I probably shouldn't have said most all subscribe to it).

Perhaps the best evidence is children or infants are never mentioned as being in hell.

We are born as carriers of the sin nature(through blood,from the father as evidenced by Jesus's lack of sin nature),but until it becomes capacity for moral reasoning at some point I feel they are covered by grace

This is just one illustration of the basis for the belief and is close to my beliefs

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1679

"Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers." (Deuteronomy 1:35). But God specifically exempted young children and infants from this condemnation -- and He even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it" (Deuteronomy 1:39). These little ones were not punished for their parents' sins, but were accepted by God into the promised land. I believe that this offers a sound basis for our confidence that God deals with young children differently than He deals with those who are capable of deliberate and conscious sin.

OK. Thanks for these scriptures that somewhat explain it. It makes sense that little children would be treated/handled differently. It's interesting to say the least.

[10fttall]

David's son who died as an infant, is another example of the children's innocence. After the boy died David said something like, he wasn't overcome with mourning because it would not bring the child back to him, but that he would go to be with the child one day. (Implying the boy was in heaven and David would see him again.)

[Thinking Skins]

David's son who died as an infant, is another example of the children's innocence. After the boy died David said something like, he wasn't overcome with mourning because it would not bring the child back to him, but that he would go to be with the child one day. (Implying the boy was in heaven and David would see him again.)

thats interesting, I had never heard that one. It gives something to think about.

[Zguy28]

While I have been through the main topic in the past, I am find the discussion of the age of accountability and the different perceptions of it interesting. The selection of the age (11-12; perhaps others) is also interesting. I has remembered something about "child" might mean up to 19-20, I believe attributed to deductions made from comments in Numbers and Deutoronomy. But I will this that to the experts. To the best I knew, no age was ever clearly stated in the Bible, is it is sorta "roll your own."

Pretty much.

I believe it was done on purpose like that. Otherwise you end up with "ritualized" spirituality and legalism.

[Burgold]

I've always thought that the whole baptismal thing is the reason why so many Americans like to vacation at the beach. Each crashing wave is just like batism insurance

[twa]

I've always thought that the whole baptismal thing is the reason why so many Americans like to vacation at the beach. Each crashing wave is just like batism insurance

I know my brothers used to love to dunk me at every opportunity...insurance :laugh:

Maybe they thought I needed the extra hundred or so,just to be on the safe side.

[Burgold]

I know my brothers used to love to dunk me at every opportunity...insurance :laugh:

Maybe they thought I needed the extra hundred or so,just to be on the safe side.

Hmmm... I wonder if it turns out that there are Pearly Gates and Peter is in a bad mood if I can use this as a get out of jail free card

[NDSkinsguy]

I just don't think that the being born of water referring to amniotic fluid theory stands to scrutiny, since there are so many sound reasons for infants to be baptized:

http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp

Infant Baptism

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a

connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious

decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Were Only Adults Baptized?

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Specific Biblical References?

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

No Cry of "Invention!"

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.

Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation.

It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).