Baptism as a Requirement for Salvation

[James]

I've been thinking about baptism. I get the sense that probably most Evangelical leaders teach that baptism is not something required for salvation, but that it is something one naturally does as a result of being saved.

I'm not terribly interested at this time in debating the merits of that view. What I'm interested in understanding is if this issue is seen as an "essential" to the faith. Can one disagree, believing that salvation follows or accompanies the baptismal event, and still be considered a Christian?

Are there any prominent Evangelical theologians/pastors/scholars who hold to that view? Who are they? Or, would believing that baptism is necessary for salvation automatically place one outside of the fold of "Christian" churches? Is it an "essential" doctrinal divide?

Thanks for your thoughts.

James

[Thomas Ham]

Acts 2:38 (King James Version)
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.

[Craig Falvo]

Mark 16:16
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

It would seem to me that baptism is a part of the equation here.

[James]

I appreciate that you guys are sharing what you believe the Bible teaches. I happen to agree with you. But, I'm more concerned with how popular this view is within the Evangelical community. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Thanks.

[xulon]

Largely, if one teaches that Baptism is essential for salvation, he is not Evangelical. At least I don't know any "leaders" who teach it. I understood this to be the question and not trying to prove Baptism is essential for salvation.

To Craig's verse, I observe that baptism is not in the second part. So, one believes and is not Baptized, what?

Also, if Baptism is essential for Salvation then how does Paul's statement fit in? For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17) Here, Baptism is separate from the Gospel so it must not be essential to it.

[John Roberts]

The context of 1 Cor. 1:17 is that Paul did baptize people but baptism is done in Jesus' name. People are not saved only by baptism...they needed to hear the gospel first and believe it. The context is that Paul was not to just go around baptizing any or everybody but to preach the gospel so that they knew who they were being baptized into and for what reason.

[xulon]

That was a result for which Paul was grateful. The cause was that Paul's call was to preach the Gospel not to Baptize. Were Baptism to be an essential part of being saved, Paul's call would have included that as part of the Gospel. I believe Paul knew enough to know Baptism was done in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and not in his name.

John Roberts said:

The context of 1 Cor. 1:17 is that Paul did baptize people but baptism is done in Jesus' name. People are not saved only by baptism...they needed to hear the gospel first and believe it. The context is that Paul was not to just go around baptizing any or everybody but to preach the gospel so that they knew who they were being baptized into and for what reason.

[John Roberts]

Not to get confused:

The gospel is one thing; baptism another and salvation the end result. Different but related.

[xulon]

The Gospel is incomplete?

[James]

Concerning 1 Cor 1:17, I read it a bit different from you xulon. I interpret it to mean that Paul was sent to preach the gospel as his personal primary mission, but not to avoid baptizing anyone. While Paul did the preaching, others did the baptizing. Each are vital parts of a process, and Paul is assigned by God to focus on the preaching part. Others would have been assigned by God to focus on baptizing.

And I'm sure you agree that Paul did in fact do some baptizing (see vs 14-16).

I don't see any reason to assume that Paul's focus on preaching was because baptism wasn't important, or even vital. Recall that the first thing Paul did once he regained his eyesight after his Damascus experience was to be baptized. He wasted no time. I think that speaks to how important baptism was to Paul.

[James]

Another way to put it is, Obama did not send Kathleen Sebellius to talk about nuclear weapons, because her assigned task is to talk about health care. Someone else has been assigned the vital task of talking about nuclear weapons.

OK, that was a weird example, but maybe it works.

Different parts in the body of Christ.

[xulon]

If Baptism is separate from the Gospel, but you are saying both are required to be saved, then Paul was negligent, wasn't he? This is not a matter of different gifts (as if there is a gift of dunking people in water sprinkling water on somebody's head). Nor is it a matter of "far be it from us to stop preaching to baptize". If Baptism is required for Salvation, then it is a required part of The Good News. The Good News is not good news without it.

[James]

Xulon, I think the operative word here is "preach", not "gospel". Paul was sent to "preach" the gospel, not necessarily to "administer" the gospel. Administering the gospel includes things like blessings, baptism, organization, distribution of welfare, etc. Any pastor knows that there are many aspects to delivering the full gospel experience.

Paul was sent to "preach" the gospel, while another may have been sent to "administer" the gospel (i.e. baptize).