I have touched on the plan of salvation in another article in brief. However, this article is meant to be more comprehensive and focus directly on the concept of water immersion and its necessity for salvation. In this article, we will cover every verse in the New Testament about New Testament immersion as well as some type-antitype relationships. For each verse, I will deal with direct objections to that verse in that same section. After I make the primary case from those verses, there will be a section dealing with general objections or negative arguments.
After one has heard the gospel, believed it, confessed that belief before men, and repented of their sins, they must then be immersed in water in order to be saved.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. Amen.
After His resurrection, Jesus tells His Apostles that He has been given all authority in Heaven and in Earth. Based on this fact, He then instructs them on how they should proceed.
Go and teach all nations - This was not just something He was telling them to do regarding the Jews, or the Samaritans, or some other specific nation. This was something that involved all nations of the world. They were to go to all of them and teach them. What were they supposed to teach them? We will touch on Mark 16:15-16 next and learn that it is the gospel that they are to teach. We learn from passages like 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12-13; and 1 Peter 2:2 that there is milk and there is meat. Milk is for those who are just beginning their journey, the basics. Meat is for mature Christians who have grown up in the faith. It doesn't take much to teach them the very foundational topics. Examples in Acts show that the conversation can be done in a short amount of time before a person being taught is ready for the next step.
Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - After they are taught the basics, Jesus commands them to baptize these people. Just the Jews? No. All nations. Baptism was commanded of all people of all nations. It was done "in that name of" which means "by the authority of" all three persons of the Godhead. This isn't a formula of what to say. It is a statement of where that authority to baptize comes from. The unified Godhead.
Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you - Jesus taught these men much during the time He walked and talked with them. He prepared them to establish His kingdom after His ascension. After they taught people the very basics necessary to baptize them, did indeed baptize them, they were then to continue to teach them everything else. That includes both milk and meat.
While this verse does not explicitly discuss the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The piece of the picture it provides is that baptism is not just for the Jews as some will claim. It is for all people. It also comes from God, not man's authority. God commanded it. Man did not come up with baptism. To reject baptism is to reject what God commands.
It doesn't say baptism saves in this passage.
That is correct. As I wrote above, it is a necessary part of the picture. However, we should not look at verses of the Bible by themselves. The Bible is a singular whole. If we are looking at salvation, we should look at all the Bible has to say about salvation. If we are talking about New Testament baptism, we should look at all the Bible has to say about New Testament baptism leaving nothing out. We need a whole picture, not just a jumbled set of individual prooftexts.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Paralleling the account we see in Matthew 28, Mark's account of the Great Commission gives us a bit more information that Matthew's account does not. In Matthew we read that Jesus told them to go teach all nations, baptizing them, then teaching them everything else He commanded. Mark tells us what they were supposed to teach all the world, every creature (every human), was the gospel. The Jesus makes to declarative statements.
What does Jesus say the conditions are to be saved? Believing the gospel AND being baptized. Both are stated explicitly by Jesus to be conditions for salvation. What then does the second part of the verse mean? First of all, the second part of the verse will in no way contradict the first part of the verse. Jesus is not stupid. He will not contradict Himself ever and certainly not in the same breath. The reality is, is that this verse is demonstrating that one must believe the gospel before they are baptized in order to be saved. That is to say, belief is a prerequisite of baptism. If you don't believe what the gospel teaches, you won't ever get to baptism, so obviously you won't be saved.
Implication - this is one of the many reasons why the "baptism" of the very young is illogical and unnecessary. They aren't capable of believing the gospel and so cannot meet the prerequisite necessary to be baptized. (Not to mention they have no sin and don't need to be saved, but that's another article.)
The second part of Mark 16 doesn't include baptism.
Mark 16:16a is a premise with a conjunction. That means it has an AND logic operator in it, in the hypothesis. That means that both conditions must be met for the conclusion to be true.
Thus, by Jesus saying "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" He is saying both believes AND baptism must be true for saved to be true.
Three points here about the second half of the verse:
1. The 2nd half of the verse does not contradict the first.
2. The 2nd half emphasizes that belief is necessary along with baptism and is indeed a prerequisite of it.
3. The 2nd half does not demand that Jesus also say "he who does not get baptized is damned".
Put into logical form we will let b = believes, i = baptized (immersion), and s = saved.
2. ~b -》~s (Mark 16:16b; negation of conjunction)
3. ~i -》~s (negation of conjunction; De Morgan's Theorem)
A word about De Morgan's Theorem. This is a law of logic that says that if the negation of the conjunction of two premises is true ~(b^i), then the negation of each premise in its disjunction (~b v ~i) is also true. This is why Jesus didn't need to say "he that is not baptized is damned (not saved)". It is implied already and stating it would be redundant without purpose.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be 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. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus speaks to Nicodemus here about what is necessary to enter the kingdom of God (the church). His first statement is the simple truth that a man needed to be reborn in order to see the kingdom. Nicodemus is confused on the nature of this rebirth and thinks Jesus is talking about physical rebirth. "How can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus, still speaking of rebirth, explains that the rebirth is of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus further clarifies that what Nicodemus is talking about is birth of the flesh, which is born from flesh. What Jesus is talking about is a spiritual rebirth which is of the Holy Spirit which, as He has already said is to be born of water.
Being born of water is the amniotic fluid of a woman and is a reference to the birth of the flesh in verse 6. Baptism of the Spirit is baptism IN the Holy Spirit. Water baptism isn't in this passage.
Nowhere in scripture is physical birth ever referred to as "born of water". Jesus is ONLY speaking of one birth in verses 3 and 5, spiritual rebirth. That rebirth is of water and the Spirit. Those who make the above objection are as confused as Nicodemus thinking that Jesus is referring to physical birth at all. He is not. Jesus speaks of birth once, then, like Mark 16:16, uses a coordinating conjunction between water and Spirit. That means that the one birth He is referring to is associated with both things. To reject one is to reject both. If you are not born of water, you are also not born of water AND the Spirit. If you are not born of the Spirit, you are not born of water AND the Spirit. That's what the word AND means. It joins things together, and when Jesus uses it, He is not adding unrelated things. For example, if He would not say something like He that believes and is a male shall be saved, where being a male is incidental. No, by using AND, those two things, water and the Spirit, are both made necessary to be reborn and enter the kingdom.
We will talk more about the difference between being baptized IN the Holy Spirit and BY the Holy Spirit in other sections. For now it is sufficient to say that when we are baptized to enter the kingdom, it is IN water (element) and BY the Holy Spirit (agent). Both are required for the one rebirth to take place.
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. [...] Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. [...] And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Peter preaches the gospel to the Jews gathered at Pentecost empowered by the Holy Spirit. He, along with the other Apostles, are able to demonstrate that they are indeed speaking with God's authority by the miracles they can perform. Their message becomes undeniable and many hear and and believe that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Son of God as He had claimed. Convicted that they had participated in the murder of the Messiah they had been looking for, for their entire existence, they asked the question: "Men and brethren, what should we do?"
Peter responds to this question by telling them:
Repent and be baptized - The AND here again means that both are required. Repentance is turning away from one course of action and towards another. In this case, its turning from sin, rejecting their murder of Christ and turning towards God and acknowledging that Christ is the Son of God. And baptism of course is to be buried with Christ by being immersed in water.
Everyone one of you - this was an individual thing, not a national thing or a representative thing. They could not be baptized on another's behalf such as a father for his family. Everyone had to do it.
In the name of Jesus Christ - this is not something the Apostles taught on their own, but that was required by Christ. The baptism has His authority. As we have seen in Matthew 28, it is by the authority of the entire Godhead. Some will make a big deal about what we say when we baptize someone, whether it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit or just in the name of Christ, but they are the same. For in Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwells (Col 2:9). In the name of is not what we say when we baptize someone, although it's useful to say it. It is by what authority do we baptize.
For the remission of sins - this is the purpose of the baptism. Why should we get baptized? For the remission of sins. Why is this important? Because it is the remitting of sins. Remittance means a forgiveness, a taking away, a payment of a debt. It is when our sins are remitted that we are saved from them, hence, Peter is saying baptism is for the purpose of saving you.
And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost - While there is much that could be said about what this means, it is beyond the purpose of this article. Note that this phrase is like the remittance of sins. Repenting and being baptized lead to remission of sins and receiving this gift. That means we are not talking about Holy Spirit baptism (baptism IN the Holy Spirit) because this is something that comes as a result of being baptized.
Note further than verse 41 says that those who received the word, that is they heard it and believed it, were baptized and added to their number. What were they added to? Verse 47 says that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. So baptism is when the Lord adds us to the church, which is the body of the saved (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 5:23).
The word eis (for) in verse 38 means "because of". For example, The criminal was thrown in jail for the crime of theft. Here, the criminal is not thrown in jail in order to commit theft. It was because the criminal had already committed the theft.
This objection is misleading because it tries to use the English word "for" which has a lot of different meanings to explain the very precise Greek word "eis". The word eis refers to purpose. It is unto, into, towards, in order to. The word is used in Matthew 26:28 where Jesus says, "this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins." Jesus didn't shed His blood because the sins of many were already forgiven. He shed His blood in order that the sins would be forgiven. It is the exact same phrase found in Acts 2:38.
Had Peter wanted to say that they were baptized because their sins were already forgiven, He would have used gar (γάρ) not eis.
Peter is only speaking to Jews and water immersion was only a national thing. It does not apply to all men everywhere.
I have already shown in Matthew 28:19 above that baptism was not just a national thing, but for all nations. Not only is there nothing contextual that demands that interpretation in Acts 2, it is demonstrable that both Jews and Gentiles were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cornelius, the Romans, the Galatians, etc. There isn't one nation of people who were exempted from this command or to whom this command did not apply in scripture.
Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
In this passage, we see Philip, who was not an Apostle, travel to Samaria and preach the gospel. He did have the ability to do miracles and was able to convince the people that what he taught was true and from God thereby. They believed Philip's message along with Simon and were all baptized. Jerusalem gets word that Samaria had obeyed the gospel and so they send Peter and John to them to lay hands on them and pass on the Holy Ghost.
This passage doesn't speak directly to what baptism does, but it is very important to understand the order of how things happened. The reason for this is that many will say that faith alone saves, but will also say that it is baptism IN the Holy Ghost that saves. Calvinists will even say that one is regenerated by the Holy Ghost before they can believe. This passage along with Acts 19:1-6 demonstrates that their assertions are incorrect. These people believed first, then were baptized. Note that they had not received the Holy Ghost yet. This shows that the way baptism/baptized is used in scripture is a default of water baptism whereas baptism in/with the Holy Ghost requires contextual evidence such as in Acts 2 with the Apostles and Acts 10-11 with Cornelius.
After being baptized, word had to reach Jerusalem which was 104 km away (about 22 hours of walking). They had to meet and decide what to do and eventually decided to send Peter and John (Apostles). So at bare minimum there are 2 days between them believing and being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the Apostle's hands. This indicates that neither faith alone nor receiving the personal, supernatural, immediate indwelling of the Holy Ghost is what saves as those two things are separated here by baptism and a significant amount of time.
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 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? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Philip is taken from Samaria to a eunuch who is traveling. He preaches Jesus unto the eunuch. By preaching Jesus, it is implied that this included baptism because after having heard Jesus preached, the eunuch asks "see, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" Again, the preaching of Jesus includes water baptism. Furthermore, Philip sets up a definite prerequisite to baptism. He tells the eunuch "IF you believe with all your heart, you MAY". It's a conditional statement that gives permission only if the condition is met. Those who do not believe with all their heart are not permitted to be baptized. This is another passage that shows that infant baptism is invalid because babies cannot believe anything. The eunuch makes the good confession: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." That was sufficient for Philip to baptize him.
Note also that this is an immersion in water. Both Philip and the eunuch go down into the water for the eunuch to be baptized. This isn't a sprinkling or a pouring, but a full immersion, else it would not have been necessary for either to go down into the water.
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
We have three accounts of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, whose Roman name was Paul. He persecuted the church in all good conscience and was met directly on the road to Damascus, where he was going to persecute the church there, by Jesus directly from Heaven. Jesus speaks to Saul, blinds Saul temporarily, and tells Him first that He is Jesus and that Paul ought to go into Damascus where he would receive instructions on what to do. There is much that can be said about these texts and the mission given to Paul, but our focus is the order of what happens and how baptism relates to that.
Saul is blind, but has already believed Jesus' claim, that this is the resurrected, living man whom the Jews had crucified. Saul demonstrates this belief by spending three days in prayer and fasting. Yet when Ananias comes to him, Saul is still in his sins. Ananias heals Saul, then tells him that he has a great mission to accomplish. In Acts 22:16, Ananias asks Saul "why do you wait?" Then he tells Saul, "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord." There are some important things to note from what Ananias tells Saul.
Baptism is to wash away sins. This goes back to what Peter said in Acts 2:38 that baptism was for the remission of sins. The blood of Christ washes away sins (Revelation 1:5) so we know that it is in baptism that we contact the blood of Christ. It is in baptism that our sins are removed from us by His blood and we are cleansed, sanctified, made holy.
Baptism is what it means to "call on the name of the Lord". To "call on the name of" means to "invoke the authority of". Calling on the name of the Lord is more than a verbal "Lord, Lord" as we see in Matthew 7:21-22. That's why in Matthew 28:19 they were to be baptized in the name of the three persons of the Godhead. That's why Peter said in Acts 2:38 they needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. When we are baptized, we are invoking the authority of Christ, we are obeying His command and trusting that He would wash away our sins in baptism as He said would happen.
Ananias called Saul "brother" before Saul was baptized.
Saul and Ananias were both Jews. Note that Ananias was "a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there". Saul reports this right before he says that Ananias calls him brother. The men were both Jews and it is in this context that Ananias calls him brother, not in the sense of spiritual brothers.
The thing that Saul was told he must do in Damascus was be a messenger to the Gentiles, not be baptized. He was already saved on the road by faith alone.
We see in Acts 26 that Paul was told on the road that he would be a messenger to the Gentiles. Jesus tells him, "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Saul then heads on into Damascus because he tells us, " I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:" Then he is told by Ananias to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins.
If Saul was saved on the road to Damascus, he would have had no sins to wash away as they would have been washed away on the road when he believed only. That Saul still needed to be baptized to wash away his sins shows that faith alone is insufficient to do that.
The text here is extraordinarily long. If you click on the link in the title of this section, you can read the entire text. I encourage you to do so.
In the associated article, I shows that Cornelius and his household had called for Peter. As Peter began speaking (Acts 11:15) the Holy Spirit falls on the Gentiles. This is important to note because if they had not heard "words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" yet, then they could not have been saved when the Holy Spirit fell on them. That still needed to happen. Peter then preaches the gospel, they believe it, and are baptized (in water since they'd already been baptized in the Holy Spirit).
For the objections and answers to those objections I recommend you read the linked article as I deal with them in depth there.
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
There is little to be gleaned from this passage other than a common objection made by the baby baptizers. Lydia heard the gospel and was baptized. No one argues that this wasn't water baptism. Note that Lydia, and by implication those under her care (may have been family, may have been those in her shop, as oikos can mean either), heard Paul preach then were baptized.
Lydia's household was baptized, that means her family, and that could have included infants.
This is an assumption that is unsupported by the text. As explained above, oikos (household) can mean any of those under the authority and care of the one who the oikos belongs to. They could have meant Lydia's family or it could have been those under her authority in her business. If it was her family, it has to be assumed that there are babies involved for the doctrine to work. One cannot assume something to build a doctrine on. Furthermore, we see that belief is a prerequisite of baptism, not just here, but in Acts 8 and in Mark 16:15-16. So even if babies are present, they aren't part of those who were baptized because they could not yet believe (nor do they have sin they need to have washed away).
Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
I have linked above to a similar article that deals not only with the events here, but largely deals with the objections as well as a common misconception most people hold about this passage. In this article, I want to focus on the baptism and the objections raised against baptism using this text as it is one of the most common.
In this text we see Paul and Silas put in jail. When the earthquake comes, the jailer is about to kill himself, but Paul stops him by saying that all the prisoners are still there. He then asks "what must I do to be saved?" This tells us that Paul and Silas been speaking the gospel and worshipping in their cells, else the jailer would not have known to ask that question. It says that the prisoners heard them praying and singing, which is indicative that at the very least, the prayers and the songs contained the gospel. Paul tells him "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your oikos". They then preach the gospel to them more fully so that they can understand and believe.
Two points to make here. The first is that oikos is the jailer, the sub-jailers, and the prisoners and not the jailer's family back at his home. For more on this, click the linked article above.
The second point to make is that believing on the Lord Jesus includes baptism. Baptism takes place in verse 33 after we see fruits worthy of repentance as the jailer washes their wounds. So we have a consistent pattern with other parts of the plan of salvation involved. The heard the gospel, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized. The only thing we don't see explicitly is the confession of Christ before men. That does not mean it did not happen or is not required. Not every account of salvation contains a record of every step. This is why we put all the verses together instead of just reading one or two in isolation.
Verse 31 only says "believe" therefore they were saved by faith only.
There are two points that address this. One, just because a passage says believe or have faith and nothing else, does not mean that only that is required. Again, we have to put all the verse together on a topic to get the full picture, not just a single verse in isolation. Second, believing is used synecdochally here to refer to all the things they needed to do to be saved. That is, believing is a part used for the whole plan. Few object to confession and repentance being necessary for salvation or incorporating them as part of believing. However, when others like me attempt to do the same with baptism, suddenly that's not acceptable. We know that baptism is included in this because in verse 33 that's what they all did, just as when Philip was preaching Jesus to the eunuch and the eunuch saw the need for baptism in Acts 8.
And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
There is not much to say here except in the desire to be thorough. Crispus was a Jew, the ruler of the synagogue. Again, oikos can mean all those under Crispus's charge, meaning all those under his authority at the synagogue rather than his biological family. He believed with all his oikos (so no babies) along with many of the Corinthian gentiles and were baptized. Once again, faith precedes baptism and baptism is part of the conversion account.
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Like Acts 8, this is an important passage to talk about the order of events regarding salvation. It also brings in to account some of the things regarding salvation before the cross.
Paul passes through Ephesus and encounters some disciples. These folks were preaching the gospel to a certain extent, but not fully, because Paul asks if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed and they didn't know what Paul was talking about. Paul then asks unto what were they baptized? This is an important question that shows us that the reason we are baptized matters. These people had already been baptized unto John the Immerser's baptism, but Paul instructs them more fully in the gospel and then were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. If the act of baptism alone was sufficient to obey and it didn't matter why you were baptized, then these people would not have been baptized again.
Furthermore, we know this is water baptism because after they believe and are baptized, then Paul lays hands on them and they receive the Holy Ghost. What this means is that either the Holy Ghost dwelling in you personally, supernaturally, and immediately has nothing to do with your salvation or that faith alone is doesn't save you as those are out of order and on either side of baptism. The reality is that neither faith alone nor the PSI indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what saves. It is in the water that our sins are washed away.
I also want to point out that John's baptism was an Old Testament doctrine and practice. It was sufficient for them for that time, but was not sufficient after the cross. If you were baptized unto John and then died before Jesus, you were fine having died under that covenant. If you lived past Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, Paul here shows that you must needs to have been re-baptized. This is the same reasoning for the thief on the cross.
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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
This passage is my go-to passage when talking about baptism. It has almost all there is in regard to baptism: what it is (water or Spirit), what its for, and details as to what happens in it.
I'm going to start with the last of those three things addressing what Paul says takes place when we are baptized. Note here that Paul speaks of these things declaring what transpires as we are being baptized. None of that "it's an outward sign of what has already happened" language is used in this text. When people speak like that, they are not speaking about baptism the way the Bible speaks of baptism. Paul declares that when we are baptized:
We are baptized into Christ Jesus - Baptism puts us into Christ where all spiritual blessings are found (Eph 1:3). If we are not in Christ, we are not saved, we are not part of His body, His church, His bride, His kingdom.
We are baptized into Jesus' death - When we are baptized into the death of Christ, we partake in His death. This isn't just an outward sign, but a spiritual reality as Paul will show in the next few words. It is important to be baptized into His death because it is in His death that He shed His blood that washes away our sins.
We are buried with Jesus in baptism - The importance of us being buried shows that this is not just a sprinkling or a pouring, but a full burial in the water. Jesus was buried and so we, too, must be buried with Him. If we are not buried with Him, then the good things that come after cannot happen.
We are raised up as He was raised from the grave - The importance of being buried with Christ is that we can also be raised as Christ was raised. If we are not buried, we cannot be raised to new life and we remain dead. Again, this isn't a show or an outward sign of something that has already happened. Paul speaks of this happening by virtue of us being baptized. Christ died and was buried and rose again to life. We too must be buried in order to be raised to new life. This is what Paul means by the conditional statement: "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" Baptism is therefore not an outward sign, it is a necessary action, an imperative condition that must be met.
Our old sinful self is crucified (put to death) and the body of sin destroyed - sin is actually destroyed, washed away, cleansed, removed from us in baptism. Without baptism, without dying to our old self, it doesn't matter that we believe in Christ, that we have confessed our sin, and turned from it to sin no more. We are still guilty of those sins and the wages of that is death (Rom 6:23). The only way to be free of those past sins is to have them destroyed and it is only in baptism that the Bible says this happens. Even faith spoken of as a synecdoche doesn't speak of taking away sins like this.
We are made no longer servants of sin - this is a huge theme of this passage, the idea that baptism is the point at which we make that choice to change masters, the point that we obey from the heart, the point at which we are set free from sin. Without baptism, we are still servants of sin, no matter what we believe or what else we do.
We are dead to sin and live for God - since God is now our new master, we live for Him instead of sin and if we do not choose to go back to that master of sin, we do not let it reign over us any more, then we will never die spiritually again. This is our assurance, though it is a conditional assurance.
We yield ourselves to obedience unto righteousness - when we are baptized, we are yielding ourselves to our new master, Jesus Christ, to obey him unto righteousness. That is to say, when we are baptized, we are not just counted righteous, declared righteous, but we are made righteous. This is a real process where sin is taken away as if it had not happened and we stand before the judgment seat of God clean and pure and blameless without sin. Without baptism, we are not made righteous, and therefore have not been justified and will be found guilty before God.
We obey from the heart this form, or pattern, of doctrine and are then set free from sin - note that this is something we must obey, which is why this is water baptism. One could not possibly obey the command to be immersed in the Holy Spirit as that would entail us commanding the Holy Spirit. There is no such command ever given and no example of such a command ever being obeyed. In fact, the only two times where baptism IN the Holy Spirit is recorded, it was something that God did to people by His will and they had no direct choice or action that involved them. Furthermore, note that it is when we obey in the form of baptism that we are set free from sin. Being set free from sin = being saved. Thus, when we obey in baptism, we are saved at that moment.
This is Holy Spirit baptism. Water is not mentioned.
As I showed above, this cannot be baptism in the Holy Spirit because that is not a command that can be obeyed. There is no other place where immersion IN the Holy Spirit is associated with having sins washed away, and the only two instances of immersion IN the Holy Spirit that we have recorded were not commands that were obeyed, but God operating in such a way that man took no action and played no active part. The command that can be obeyed is to be baptized in water, thus this is water baptism, not baptism IN the Holy Spirit.
This is just an outward sign of what has already happened by faith alone.
The language Paul uses denies this. He speaks of these things happening in reality as baptism takes place, not as a show or symbol of what has already happened.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
I bring this passage up as a baptism passage even though the word "baptism" isn't in the specific passage. I do this because this passage is often used as a general objection to baptism being necessary and because baptism is indeed in this passage despite the word not being there.
In verse 9 and 10 Paul says that belief and confession are "unto" salvation. In 2 Cor 7:10 we see that repentance is unto salvation. These are all things that are unto (that word eis again) salvation. Meaning they are all necessary for it or for the purpose of being saved. However, Paul provides us a logical order here of what needs to happen altogether. He does it in reverse order in a cause and effect chain of events.
Here is where baptism comes in. He says in verse 13 "For" (gar) whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. That word "For", as we talked about above is "because". That means that the things Paul just said (in verses 9-12) are true because 13 is true. Yet Paul has already told us what it means to call upon the name of the Lord in Acts 22:16. It means to be baptized. That is how we invoke the authority of Christ, submitting ourselves to Him in baptism in order to have our sins destroyed as he has just explained in chapter 6. Baptism is indeed in this passage. Yet who would be baptized if they did not believe (see Mark 16:16 above)? Who can believe if they do not hear the gospel? And who can hear if it is not preached. Faith comes by hearing the gospel first, then, when we believe, we respond in obedience and our faith is made perfect there and our sins are washed away. This passage is not a faith only passage. Just the opposite.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 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. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
The context of this opening passage in 1 Corinthians is Paul dealing with some division that was going on in the church there. This division was condemned. The nature of that division was at least partly related to them dividing over who had baptized them. Paul chastises them by asking a couple of rhetorical questions. Was Paul crucified for you? No, Christ was. Were you baptized in the name of Paul? No, they were baptized in the name of Christ. That's when he is thankful that he only personally baptized a few of them. He had not been sent to do the manual work of baptizing people, others could do that. Paul's focus was preaching.
I have more to say on this passage below in the larger objection section because its used so often. The conclusion here though is that baptism, which Paul explained to Rome was our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, is in the name of Christ not Paul, Apollos, or any other man besides.
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.
Paul says one other thing related to baptism in this letter to the church at Corinth. We are baptized BY one Spirit into one body. Here, Paul is not talking about being immersed IN the Holy Spirit as they were on Pentecost or at Cornelius' house. There, they were immersed IN the Holy Spirit such that He was the element. Here, Paul is speaking of agency. It is by one Spirit that we are baptized into that one body. This, as we shall see, is when we are baptized according to the Word that the Holy Spirit inspired. It means that we must be baptized for the reasons the Godhead gave us, not for ones we make up.
When we are baptized in water (element), we are baptized by the Holy Spirit (agent) and it is His operation on our spirit during that time that washes away our sins, not by our own efforts.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Paul has finished once again showing that the Old Testament's authority over anyone has passed and that we are all now under the New Covenant. He then uses that word "For" (gar) again saying that they were no longer under the tutor because they were all now children of God by faith in Christ. In the very next breath, he explains how they were children of God by faith. They were children of God by faith because they had all been baptized into Christ and put on Christ.
The point Paul is showing here is that faith in Christ Jesus encompasses the idea of being baptized into Christ. Faith without baptism doesn't put us into Christ.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
This is a short, succinct passage, but it is potent nonetheless. The events of Pentecost and even Cornelius happened early on in the time of the church, before any of the writings came about. By the time Paul writes this passage, only one baptism remains. Since we have talked about a whole bunch of baptisms, it is imperative for us to know which one he is referring to. Our options are any of the Old Testament baptisms including John's, baptism in the Holy Spirit like the Apostles on Pentecost or Cornelius in Acts 10-11, or water immersion by the Holy Spirit. Given that, with the exception of Acts, the baptism associated with salvation is water baptism, we can be confident that this is the one baptism of Ephesians 4. We see this in Eph 5:26 and 1 Peter 3:21 most clearly.
No other baptism besides water immersion was being done by the time Paul wrote Ephesians.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is shown to be in water by the Holy Spirit in this passage. The church, the bride of Christ, was sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the Word. To be sanctified and cleansed is to be set apart, made holy, have your sins removed. This isn't just the ritualized cleansing of the Old Testament, but the real cleansing those rituals pointed to, the actual removal of sin from the soul.
Furthermore, this is how the Holy Spirit baptizes us. He inspired the Word to be written so when we are baptized according to the Word, that is for the reasons and in the manner the Word describes, then we are being baptized by Him and not the whims and will of man. In this sense, the Holy Spirit is the one baptizing us.
Water here means the word because of John 4 where Jesus speaks of the word as the water of life.
The Word cannot be the water else Paul ends up being redundant in this passage. They were sanctified and cleansed by the washing of the Word by the Word? That is nonsensical. We are washed in the water according to the Word, doing it in the manner and for the reasons the Bible gives us. While the Word is metaphorically referred to as the water of life or the river of life, this does not mean that when we read Eph 5:26 we automatically substitute that metaphor for the word water. We have to have contextual reason to do so and here we do not.
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;
Baptism here is compared to its type, circumcision, the cutting away of flesh. In the way that circumcision cut away flesh from the body, baptism removes the sins from our soul. Baptism IS the circumcision made without hands.
Again Paul writes that we are buried with Christ when we are baptized, a real thing so that our baptism coincides with being buried with Christ.
When Christ was crucified and buried, He had faith that God would raise Him from the dead. So too when we are buried with Him in baptism, we have faith that while we are thus buried, God is operating on us, removing our sins in order to raise us to new life, restored to a right relationship with Him. In baptism, God makes us alive again and forgives us of all our trespasses. Without baptism, we are not forgiven, not made alive, and do not have those sins removed.
This is the operation of God, therefore this must be Holy Spirit baptism. Water is not mentioned.
Once more we refer to Ephesians 4:5 where Paul has stated that there is only one baptism. Then from Romans 6, Ephesians 5:26, and 1 Peter 3:21 we learn that the one baptism still being taught and practiced that saves is water baptism. While the Holy Spirit is the agent here, operating on us when we are baptized, water is still what we are baptized in before He will perform that operation.
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 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;
This is a confusing passage for many because of what they bring to it. They associate the wrong things within the sentence together and so stumble over all that Paul is conveying.
He tells Titus that we were once sinners, but, through no work on our part, God sent a Savior out of love for us. Grace is God's work. It is the cause of salvation, the will of God and not the whim nor work of man. Out of mercy He sent Christ to be our atonement.
Then Paul talks about how that happens. He saves us by the washing of regeneration - that's baptism - and renewing of the Holy Ghost - that's the agent operating through the Word that we have seen twice now already.
In other words, God sent Jesus to die for us and the Holy Spirit to teach us what we ought to do and why. That which He taught us was to be baptized in order to be regenerated, that is, to be brought back to life as we have read in John 3:3,5; Romans 6; and Colossians 2:11-13. Without baptism, there is no regeneration.
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 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:
Verse 20 shows us that we are talking about water. Verse 21 says that it is the antitype of the Flood, baptism, that now saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is as clear as it gets. Baptism does also now save you. Yet whole novels have been written contradicting this statement. They will cling to the parenthetical statement that Peter makes trying to have him contradict himself within the parenthetical so that Peter ends up saying baptism saves (baptism doesn't save) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the resistance reaches its greatest absurdity. Baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How? Paul has already explained this in Romans 6 and Colossians 2. If Jesus was raised from the grave, we who have been buried in the likeness of His death by being baptized can expect that when we come up out of that grave, we have been raised to new life.
In the parentheses, Peter says they already have a clear conscience, so this must mean that baptism is an outward sign that they are saved, or already clean.
There is a huge difference between a clear conscience and a cleansed soul. Paul said that he persecuted the church with a clear conscience (Acts 23:1) yet was living in sin. The parenthetical is saying three things:
baptism is the epirotema, the answer to that which is demanded by a clear conscience. In other words, when our conscience has been properly educated by the gospel, it demands that we be baptized in order to be saved.
we must have a good conscience, i.e. a heart that has turned toward God before we can be baptized (again, no babies can do this).
Thus, the parenthetical does not negate the main statement, it enhances it, solidifies it, confirms its truth...baptism saves.
The idea of types in the Bible is that there is some Old Testament concept, usually physical, that points to a higher, spiritual New Testament truth. It is important to understand that the types do not equal the antitype they point to, nor are they like the antitype in all respects. We should not expect a direct parallel, but should understand from the type the thing that is intended to be conveyed by it and only that when we regard the antitype it points to.
The Flood of Noah's day is a powerful type pointing to New Testament baptism. One of its strengths is that baptism is explicitly referred to as an antitype of the Flood. In this type we see a physical event involving water. This water covers the whole earth (immersion). It destroys sin (all the wicked people) and saves the righteous from that sin.
In this event we have a picture of God's grace.
There is the plan of salvation - God gives Noah plans to build an ark in order to be saved.
There is man's obedient faith - Noah's family builds the ark to God's specifications and enter it along with all the animals and are saved.
Some will say that Noah was saved "through" the water meaning that it was the water being confused by the English word "through". They will say that this means that through here means that the water was the thing they were saved from by the ark and that the ark represents Christ. However, there are some problems with this picture. First off, the word "through" here in the Greek doesn't mean through like walking through a passageway or making it through a rough time. It means "through the means of". It is the Greek word "dia" which is translated as "by, through the means of, because of". It is a preposition denoting agency. It was the water that saved Noah and his family from the wickedness of the world.
Furthermore, Noah built the ark. It was his work of obedient faith. To say that the ark is what saved Noah is to say that he was saved by his own efforts, which to many is counter to their arguments of faith-only.
For those of us who have no issues with works of obedient faith being necessary for salvation, it is a perfect picture of what happens at baptism.
There are, of course, some differences to note. Types aren't an exact replica of the thing they point to. For instance, Noah did not get wet. He was not the one who was immersed in the water. The world was. This does not mean the type-antitype relationship is broken. Jesus not being an actual sheep doesn't break the type-antitype relationship of the lamb's offered in the OT pointing to Christ as the Lamb of God.
Circumcision was a process that was done to the males of those who were either proselytizing or born to the Israelite nation. It was a cutting away of the tip of the flesh of the male penis and was given as a sign that the male was a member of God's people. In Colossians 2 we see that circumcision is used as a type referring to baptism wherein the flesh is cut away and we are made part of God's people of the New Testament, the church. It is a circumcision made without hands because it is God that is removing the "flesh" (the sins of the flesh).
There are those who try to use circumcision beyond the comparisons that the Bible uses to make claims about baptism that aren't true.
They will claim that circumcision is involuntary as it was typically done to infants at 8 days old. Thus, the circumcision that takes place in Colossians 2 is an involuntary regeneration that God does to the heart first by baptism in the Holy Spirit, not water. This is determinism and is anti-Biblical. Moreover, circumcision was a choice made by either the parents of the child or the man who proselytized into the nation, so the deterministic objection doesn't hold. Lastly, we have already shown above that only water immersion remained by this time, and immersion in the Holy Spirit was a special event that is recorded only twice for very specific reasons.
Others will claim that circumcision was an outward sign that the male was an Israelite, but that the child was born to Israelite parents and therefore an Israelite before being circumcised. This is incorrect. The male could not take part in the blessings of Israel without being circumcised. It was not just an outward symbol but a necessary process to take part in the blessings of the nation. So, to, baptism is a necessary process to take part in the spiritual blessings that are in Christ Jesus, to be added to the nation or kingdom of Christ.
There are some differences to note with circumcision. First off, there is no water involved at all in physical circumcision. Second, it is actual flesh that is being removed rather than the removal of the sins that come about from the desires of the flesh left unchecked. This does not destroy the type-antitype relationship. The type only gives us a part of the picture and should only be used as far as the Bible uses it.
One of my favorite types of baptism found in the Old Testament is when the Israelite nation crosses the Red Sea. They were in bondage to Egypt, which represents our bondage to sin. They go down into the sea with water on either side and the pillar of cloud (that Paul says was Jesus Christ personally) above. When they come up on the other side, they are no longer in bondage to Egypt, but free. The Egyptians follow them into the water, but the water destroys them representing the destruction of sin that takes place in the waters of baptism.
There is of course some differences. You have a mass "baptism" of the Israelite people rather than individual immersion. There is also the fact that nobody of Israel actually gets wet. Keep in mind that the type doesn't exactly match the antitype. It only points to it and teaches us some things about it. Note that those who chose to remain on the near side of the Red Sea and failed to cross would have remained and likely been destroyed by the Egyptians.
The next type-antitype relationship is that of Naaman of Syria. He is a captain of the Syrian armies, a good and valiant man, but he has leprosy. An Israelite serving girl tells of the prophets in Israel that could help. A letter is sent to the king of Israel and eventually Elisha hears about it. Naaman goes to Elisha and asks about having his leprosy cured. God, through Elisha, tells Naaman to dip seven times in the Jordan river.
Naaman at first is angry because he doesn't get to do some grand deed to be worthy of such a cleansing. He doesn't even get to bathe in the beautiful rivers of his homeland. He has to go down to the old muddy Jordan as commanded. However, eventually he does what God commands and, on coming up out of the water of the Jordan the seventh time, he is cleansed by God.
The parallels here of the type are as follows:
God gives Naaman a plan to follow through His prophets - we are given the plan of salvation to follow through the prophets of the New Testament.
Naaman doesn't get to do what he thinks he should do to be saved from his leprosy; he must do what God said - we don't get to do what we think will save us from our sins; we must do what God says
Naaman goes down into the water - we must go down into the water
Naaman isn't actually cleansed by the water, but by God after Naaman acts in obedient faith by going down into the water; in other words, the water didn't save Naaman, but he would not have been saved had he not gone into the water the way God said - we aren't saved by the water itself, but by the operation of God removing our sins when we act in obedient faith by being baptized; the water doesn't wash away our sins, but we cannot have our sins washed away without going down into the water.
Many of these have already been addressed above. However, I will iterate them here in this section so that there is no confusion and nothing is missed.
The link leads to a longer analysis of the thief on the cross than I will cover here, but it is worth reading to get the full picture.
The objection is that the thief on the cross was saved without having to get baptized and so we shouldn't have to get baptized to be saved. The problem with this is that the thief was saved by Jesus while on Earth, before He died. The thief was saved under the Old Covenant, not the New. He could not have been baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ because Jesus was still alive when the thief was saved! Thus, the thief is not a valid example of salvation under the New Covenant any more than Abraham, Moses, or David are valid examples of what we must do to be saved today under the New Covenant.
The thief on the cross is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
The objection here is that Paul says we are saved by grace through faith and that only faith is mentioned, therefore baptism can't be a part of this. Furthermore, the objection says, it says not of works lest any man should boast.
The answer to the first objection is to simply define the terms. Grace is what God gives us, which is the plan of salvation. Faith is the living, obedient faith James describes in James 2. It is not the dead faith that has no action involved.
The second objection is answered by understanding, from the context, what kind of works Paul is referring to here. These kinds of works are works that can be boasted about, thus they are meritorious in nature. These kinds of works are those of Naaman doing some valiant deed worthy of being cleansed of his leprosy, wherein the focus and glory are his. Baptism is not that kind of work. It is the kind of work described in Luke 17:10 that has no intrinsic value, but is simply a matter of duty, of requirement. God gets the glory when we are baptized because it was His death, burial, and resurrection that enables us to be saved in baptism, not our own grand deed. Furthermore, the context shows that these meritorious deeds that Paul is referring to are part of keeping the deeds of the law of Moses (see Ephesians 2:15). The problem with that is once you broke one law of the law of Moses, you broke them all and the law of Moses had no power to save. Thankfully, that law was taken away, nailed to the cross, and men are no longer required to keep that heavy burden. We only must obey in the simple, humble act of baptism into Christ.
Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
I address this objection above to some extent, but it bear repeating here. Many will come to this passage and argue that Paul says he is glad he did not baptize anyone (vs 14). In fact, the objection continues, Paul says he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel (vs 17). Thus, the objector will say, baptism isn't really important. It's just a thing you can do if you want to, or to be obedient after you have been saved.
When they make these objections, as is almost always the case, they leave out the context of their prooftexts.
Why does Paul say he is glad he did not baptize anyone (but Crispus and Gaius)? Verse 15 says because he didn't want them dividing over it, didn't want them claiming that he baptized in his own name rather than the name of Christ (see also vs 13). It is Christ who was crucified for them. It was in the name of Christ that they were baptized.
Verse 17 also doesn't teach that baptism isn't important just because Paul wasn't sent to do it. The point Paul is making here is that, as an Apostle, his task directly received from Christ is to do the preaching. He would let others do the manual work of baptizing so that there would be no occasion for anyone to divide over having the "privilege" of having been personally baptized by the Apostle. It is absurd to think that Paul is preaching that baptism isn't important when he wrote so prolifically about the necessity, purpose, and importance of baptism throughout the New Testament as I have shown above.
Baptism is of utmost importance. The human that holds you so you don't slip and fall, who declares that you are being immersed by the authority of God, isn't really important and doesn't affect anything. That is the point Paul is making here. Don't divide over who baptizes you as the baptizER isn't important.
The baptism is what is essential.
1 Corinthians 1 is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
Like many of these objections, I have written an entire article in detail on the topic and suggest that you read it for the more in depth look. I have linked the article to the story of Cornelius above.
The objection to water immersion being necessary to salvation in this case goes like this: Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit and was thus saved before he was ever baptized in water, which he did later as an outward sign to all those who were there that he was saved.
There are a host of issues with this objection that I will use to give answer.
Immersion IN the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit is the element in which one is immersed doesn't save. Caiaphas had the Holy Spirit as high priest guiding him to prophesy and yet he was an enemy of God (John 11:49-51). Immersion IN the Holy Spirit only happened three times: Pentecost, Cornelius, and by implication Paul. It was for the purpose of empowering the Apostles or for showing that the Gentiles were acceptable candidates for baptism into the kingdom. Lastly, in Acts 8 and 19 you have people who believed the gospel, were immersed in water, then received the Holy Spirit later which, if receiving the Holy Spirit is what saves, demands the conclusion that faith alone does not save according to those two passages.
Cornelius was immersed in the Holy Spirit before he heard the gospel. Peter relates in Acts 11 that as he began to speak the words by which Cornelius would be saved, the Holy Spirit fell on them. So they would have been saved without faith since faith comes by hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17).
Lastly, it is absurd to say that water baptism was an outward sign to those present that these Gentiles were saved give what those present had already witnessed concerning the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon them.
The text itself does not say that the Holy Spirit falling upon them saved them.
Cornelius is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
The objection offered for Romans 10 is that Paul writes in this chapter that only belief and confession are connected with salvation. Since there is no mention of baptism, then baptism cannot be necessary. There are two major issues with this objection.
As addressed above, the concept of baptism is in Romans 10. It's in verse 13 where Paul says whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. As Acts 22:16 shows, calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved means being baptized to wash away your sins.
Furthermore, this objection reads Romans 10 as if it is an isolated passage. Paul has already dealt thoroughly with baptism in Romans 6, in the longest passage on New Testament baptism that exists in the Bible. By virtue of it being in Romans 6, it is in the context of Romans 10 because its the same letter!
Romans 10:9-10 is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
Some people have objected to the idea of the necessity of water immersion for salvation by saying that Peter and Paul taught different gospels. A variation on this is that water immersion is only for those who were Jews and was a national repentance concept.
However, as we have shown, the Great Commission was to all nations and that included baptism by the authority of the three persons of the Godhead. Furthermore, if Paul and Peter taught different gospels, one of them would be false as Galatians 1 explicitly teaches. There is only one faith (Eph. 4:5) just as there is only one baptism. That faith was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude vs 3). The whole of scriptures, not just the parts that Moses wrote, or Peter wrote, or Paul wrote, are able to make us complete, thoroughly furnish us (2 Tim 3:16-17).
The argument that Peter and Paul taught different gospels is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
This objection is when someone will quote only Acts 16:31 and, similar to Romans 10:9-10 or Ephesians 2:8-9 will say "see, no baptism is mentioned, only faith, therefore faith only saves". It is another example of a verse removed from its context in order to prooftext. As stated above, all one has to do is go to verse 33 to see baptism in the context. Furthermore, Paul writes in Galatians 3:26-27, that baptism is encompassed by faith. This reality is played out before us in Acts 16. When Paul tells the jailer "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved", baptism is included in that "believe". This is why the jailer shows repentance by washing their stripes and then is baptized.
The Philippian jailer is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
The last objection is perhaps the most comprehensive in one sense and rather frustrating in that sense to address, but it can also be one of the easiest to address. It really depends on how you approach it. Some will say that baptism is a work and works can't save and they'll quote Ephesians 2:8-9 or some verse out of Romans, likely 4:4 or 11:6. This is an easy objection for them to state but it takes a lot of foundation laying to address it if you go the full route, which I'll address below. However, the easy way out is to show that baptism is actually the most passive part of the plan of salvation. Studying the word, believing, repenting, and confessing are all things one does actively. Baptism is something done TO you, so if we define works as an action you take or something you do, then baptism technically is the only thing on the list that isn't a work. This answer is usually received poorly as a shallow response or "a technicality" and is generally unsatisfying, therefore it accomplishes little against the die hard dead-faither.
The more comprehensive response is to address the prooftexts against like I did with Ephesians already. In Romans, one of the main themes Paul discusses is the contrast between the law of Moses and grace. When grace is properly defined, Paul is shown to be contrasting the Old Testament to the New Testament. So in Romans 4 AND in Romans 11:6, Paul is not arguing against all kinds of works, but against works of the Old Testament. One cannot be saved by sacrificing sheep, tithing, circumcision, or other trappings of the Old Testament. One must be saved by submitting to the commands of the New. This includes baptism. Again, these objections are within the same context as Romans 6 and, were they to stand, would mean that Paul was contradicting himself in a singular letter.
So if we grant that baptism is a work, even if it technically is passive and probably shouldn't be considered a work, it is a work of grace, a work of the New Covenant that God commands all men to do in order to wash away their sins.
Therefore, "baptism is a work!" is not a valid objection to the necessity of water immersion for salvation.
I have covered every passage dealing with NT immersion as far as I can remember. If I left one out, please let me know. I have also answered every objection that I have heard. As more arise, I will return to address them above. In so far as the information I have above is complete, I have shown conclusively that the premise I set out to prove true is indeed true: