Saved by Baptism Alone?

Baptism

The concept of salvation by faith alone is quite popular. Many have been deceived into thinking that all God requires of man is a simple mental affirmation of Jesus being the Savior. As long as one believes this, then he will be saved.

There are several passages that brethren use to refute the concept of salvation by faith alone. The clearest was written by James: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). If you get out your concordance and search for this phrase, you will find that this verse is the only one that says anything about “faith alone,” and it denies that we are saved on this basis.

The truth is that our salvation is attributed to many things – God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8), mercy (Titus 3:5), and love (John 3:16); the blood, death, and life of Christ (Romans 5:9-10); the gospel (Romans 1:16); our faith (John 8:24), repentance (Luke 13:3,5), confession (Romans 10:9-10), baptism (Mark 16:16), obedience (Hebrews 5:9), and more*. To claim that we are saved by faith alone is simply not compatible with Scripture.

One item in the list above that is vehemently attacked by sectarians is baptism. Despite the fact that Peter said, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21), many will adamantly deny that baptism is necessary for salvation. In light of this, truth teachers will often spend a good deal of time explaining the vital role of baptism in our salvation.

As a result of this, some incorrectly assume (or dishonestly charge) that those who affirm the necessity of water baptism for salvation must believe in salvation by baptism alone. In case there might be any confusion on this matter, let us notice why baptism alone does not save us.

Remember first that we are certainly saved by faith (John 8:24; Romans 5:1; Hebrews 11:6). There is no disagreement on this point. But we are not saved by “faith alone” (James 2:24). Other things are necessary and we have noticed a few already. Interestingly, James specifically mentioned “works” as being a necessary compliment to faith: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

We have already seen that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by baptism (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Unlike faith, there is no passage that specifically states we are saved “not by baptism alone.” Does the absence of such a passage mean we can affirm salvation by baptism alone? Of course not. No reasonable person would make such a claim. (Yet many “reasonable” people say we are saved by faith alone. How can this be?)

When Philip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch from Ethiopia, the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:35-36). This shows us that baptism occupies a prominent place in the preaching of Christ. But notice Philip’s response. If one could be saved by baptism alone, he could have answered, “Nothing, just be baptized.” Instead he said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may” (Acts 8:37). Belief in Christ (faith) was also required. We could consider other examples, but this one is sufficient to make the point. While baptism is essential, it is not the only thing we must do to be saved.

There is not one single thing to which our salvation may be exclusively attributed. We are saved by faith (Hebrews 11:6). We are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21). We are saved by continued obedience (Hebrews 5:9). And of course, all of this is possible because God saves us by grace (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 2:11).

Are we saved by faith alone? No. Are we saved by baptism alone? No. We are saved by God when we meet the conditions He has given. Faith, baptism, and the others noted above all play a part in this. Rather than focusing on one, let us follow God wholly and completely so that we might be saved.


*For a more complete list of all that plays a part in our salvation, I recommend Tim Haile’s article, The Different Things To Which Salvation Is Attributed In The Bible.


.

Comments

  1. Ben Simpson says

    Hello, Andy. Thanks for sharing your take on the Bible here. You said several things that were very interesting to me, but two things stand out to me.

    First, you called those who oppose salvation through baptism “sectarian.” Would you give me insight into that term?

    Second, what really stands out is this paragraph: “There is not one single thing to which our salvation may be exclusively attributed. We are saved by faith (Hebrews 11:6). We are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21). We are saved by continued obedience (Hebrews 5:9). And of course, all of this is possible because God saves us by grace (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 2:11).”

    If salvation requires obedience, of which I’m assuming you would say baptism is a part, how is it that we are saved by grace? That seems quite antithetical to me.

    How much obedience is required?

    If salvation requires obedience, why did Christ die?

    I certainly wouldn’t want to downplay the importance of obedience, but upon the authority of Scripture, I cannot say that we are saved by obedience. Rather obedience is a result of salvation and proof of salvation. Faith is the root of salvation, and obedience is the fruit of our salvation. He who is saved will be obedient, proving that his faith is really faith.

    So, it’s not faith without obedience, it’s not obedience without faith, and it’s not faith and obedience. It’s faith evidenced by obedience.

    What say you?

  2. Ben, thanks for your comment.

    First, regarding the use of the word “sectarian,” it simply refers to those who promote and practice denominationalism.

    To your second question, salvation by grace yet requiring obedience – this trips a lot of people up. The reason is that many are taught the concept of UNCONDITIONAL grace. In one sense, grace is unconditional in that God OFFERS salvation to all. On the other hand, salvation is CONDITIONAL. A couple passages to consider on this point:

    “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11). Does this mean that all will be saved? Sadly, no. Jesus said “many” will follow the “broad [way] that leads to destruction,” while “few” would find the “narrow [way] that leads to life” (Matthew 7:13-14). The fact that God requires certain things of man (faith, obedience) does not mean that salvation is no longer by grace. If we were saved by UNCONDITIONAL grace, then all would be saved.

    Regarding your question: “How much obedience is required?” I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking how much sin and unrighteousness we may be content with in our lives? Jesus said, “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). If there is any sin or shortcoming in our lives, we need to correct it.

    You asked: “If salvation requires obedience, why did Christ did?” Because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Sin needed to be atoned for. But this does not exclude our need to obey. Jesus is “to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9).

    You’re treating these things that complement one another (God’s grace & man’s obedience, Jesus’ death & our obedience) as if they were mutually exclusive. They are not. I believe we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8). I believe we are saved by faith (Romans 5:1). I believe we are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21). And I also believe we are saved through obedience (Hebrews 5:9).

    Hope that helps.

  3. Ben Simpson says

    Andy, thanks for the response!

    So, is the Church of Christ not a denomination? If not, why not?

    If obedience is part of the reason we are saved, how much obedience is required?

  4. “Is the Church of Christ not a denomination?”

    That depends upon what you mean by “Church of Christ.” THE church of Christ is the universal body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). It is His bride and is made up of those who are being saved (Ephesians 5:23). It is the one church that He promised to build (Matthew 16:18).

    I am not a member of any denomination. I am simply a Christian. I assemble with a group that calls itself a church of Christ, after the example of the churches Paul associated with, as they were referred to as “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). This is a local, autonomous congregation. We are not affiliated with or somehow tied to a larger organization or confederation of other local churches.

    Now, could there be a denomination that uses the name “Church of Christ”? Sure there could. But I’m not acquainted or connected with such a group.

    You asked again, “how much obedience is required?” I said before that I wasn’t sure what you meant, and I still don’t know what you mean. Sorry. Obedience isn’t really a question of “how much?” It’s just obedience – following the instructions we find in the Scriptures. My best guess as to the meaning of your question is that you’re trying to justify and condone sin. If that’s not the point, then I apologize for missing the point of your question.

    Jesus said that disciples were to be taught “to observe all that [He] commanded” (Matthew 28:20). Paul wrote, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1-2). If we’re going to ask how much obedience is required, maybe we ought to ask instead how much disobedience is allowed?

    John wrote, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin” (1 John 2:1). This was part of the reason why the letter was written – so that Christians would stop sinning and instead be obedient. Is it still possible that Christians will sin? Of course. And God has a plan for that: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9). But a Christian that has sinned must repent, not ignore his fault because he thinks that only a small amount of obedience is required.

  5. Ben Simpson says

    As for the Church of Christ denomination, I see what you are saying. So you guys of the Campbellite Church of Christ tradition don’t affiliate or fellowship with other Campbellite Churches of Christ? Very interesting. There is so much uniformity between you all that I assumed there was a shared doctrinal primer and fellowship. So, is your local Campbellite Church of Christ non-institutional?

    The church of Christ I belong to (West Main Baptist Church)voluntarily cooperates with other churches, but we are autonomous, meaning that no other church or organization has any authority over us. We feel that we can accomplish more together than we can separately, especially in missions and education. Therefore, we cooperate with churches of like doctrine and purpose.

    As for being sectarian, any group that adheres to a certain doctrine is a sect. Denomination doesn’t divide. Doctrine divides. Therefore, your congregation is as sectarian as mine, even though you don’t association with any larger body than your local church.

  6. Ben Simpson says

    Andy, the point of my question was in no way to justify and condone sin. To do so in any way is sin itself and thoroughly unbiblical. The point of my question was to push you to see that 100% obedience is what God requires.

    The bad news is that neither you nor I have been that today. If one says that he has been perfectly obedient, then he either does not understand the high standards of righteousness set for by our God or he is blind to his sin. You see, our sin is so pervasive and insidious that it’s very often imperceptible to us, leaving us sinning without realizing it. According to your understanding of sin and forgiveness, we are only forgiven for those sins for which we repent, but there is no repentance from a sin you are unaware of. Therefore, if what you say is correct, we are in serious eternal danger because we stand unforgiven due to unrepentance.

    What’s more, when you say that we are saved by obedience, you are saying that we are saved by our self-righteousness. That’s treacherous spiritually. Jesus wants us to be the publican and not the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-17). Jesus wants us to boast with Paul who counted all of his righteousness as loss for the sake of Christ so that he would be found in Jesus, not having a righteousness of his own derived from his obedience, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith (Philippians 3:7-11).

    There certainly should be obedience to God in our life, but we are not saved because of our obedience. Instead, we are obedient because of our salvation. I pray that you’ll put no confidence in Andy Sochor’s righteousness and put full confidence in Jesus’ righteousness. We’ll never earn Heaven. But, the Good News is that we don’t have to. Jesus earned it for us, and for all who have genuine faith in Jesus, which is evidenced by obedience to God, they are gifted with Heaven.

    You asked in your original post how a “reasonable” person could say that we are saved by faith alone. Perhaps it’s because this person stands with the truth of Scripture, which says, “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Romans 3:27-28). Given Paul’s unequivocal statement here that we are saved apart from obedience, we must understand James’ words in James 2:24 to mean that we are justified/saved by faith evidenced by obedience.

    Let me say that I am glad to read you stand against the Roman Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration, which is salvation simply by entering the water. I only wish you would have gone further and stood against the Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith plus obedience and against baptismal necessity.

  7. Ben, where did I ever say or even imply that I meet with a “Campbellite Church of Christ”? What I did say was this:

    “I am simply a Christian. I assemble with a group that calls itself a church of Christ, after the example of the churches Paul associated with, as they were referred to as “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16).”

    I know of no one who calls himself a “Campbellite.” I know of no churches that call themselves “Campbellite” churches. It is a false charge to impose such a label on any person or congregation that does not claim it for themselves. Furthermore, when one uses this label, he demonstrates his ignorance of the history of the movement he tries to evoke.

    You say you belong to a Baptist church. I accept the claim you make for yourself. In fairness, I believe you should accept what I say — that I assemble with a church of Christ — without adding a derogatory and inaccurate label of “Campbellite” in front of it.

    You say: “Denomination doesn’t divide.” But division is the foundation of denominationalism! Why are you a Baptist? It is because you associate with those “of like doctrine and purpose.” The Baptist church cannot be found in the Bible. So this “like doctrine and purpose” that you share with others is something different than what we find in the Bible. If you followed the Bible as your EXCLUSIVE rule of faith and practice, you could not be a Baptist, just a Christian. I would encourage you to give up the things that make you a Baptist and just follow what the Bible teaches about being a Christian.

    Regarding your comments about obedience, let me just make a few brief remarks:

    Again, the Hebrew writer said Jesus is “to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9). Is obedience necessary for salvation? Absolutely!

    You said, “We’ll never earn Heaven.” I agree. We’re not talking about what one EARNS, we’re talking about the conditions God has attached to His grace.

    You quoted Paul saying, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28). You concluded from this that “we are saved apart from obedience.” That’s not what Paul said. He said we cannot be saved by following the Old Law (the Law of Moses), but that we must follow Christ. If Paul’s words mean that we are saved apart from obedience, then passages like Hebrews 5:9 and James 2:24 make no sense.

    You said, “I only wish you would have gone further and stood against the Roman Catholic idea of justification by faith plus obedience and against baptismal necessity.” I believe we are saved by faith because Paul said we are “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1). I believe we are saved by obedience because of what the Hebrew writer said in the passage quoted above (Hebrews 5:9). I believe baptism is necessary for salvation because Jesus said, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), and because Peter said, “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

  8. Ben Simpson says

    Andy, I’ll admit ignorance to “Campbellite” being derogatory. I didn’t say it to offend. I was simply trying to capture the historical stream of the Restoration Movement that your church most likely bears the legacy of. Perhaps I should have pointed to Barton Stone instead of Alexander Campbell.

    Whatever the case may be, your church did not arise in an ecclessiological vacuum. Someone did not open up the New Testament and your “church of Christ” fall out. For one to act as if this were so shows one’s ignorance to one’s historical heritage.

    I understand that you believe, Andy, that your church is the closest manifestation of the New Testament design. However, you must understand that I believe mine to be as well. I don’t follow a denomination. I follow my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible, which is God’s revelation to humanity. I would gladly call my church “church of Christ.” In fact, many Baptist churches used to do that until the rise of the Restoration Movement when “church of Christ” became affiliated with the doctrinal distinctives of: acapella singing, baptismal necessity, the rejection of justification/salvation through faith alone. So, my church is most certainly a church of Christ, but we do not call ourselves that because we do not desire to be associated with what we believe to be the unscriptural doctrine people associate with the name “church of Christ.” We wish we could call ourselves “church of Christ,” but in this fallen world we cannot.

    All that I just said perfectly illustrates my earlier point that denominationalism doesn’t divide. Rather, doctrine divides. You said that division is the foundation of denominationalism, and I agree with that. But doctrinal division, not division for division’s sake, is the catalyst for denominationalism. My church and others like it did not set out to create a denomination and divide the Kingdom of God. Instead, we had to separate when we could not agree with others on what the Bible teaches. And over time, labels developed for theological expediency–theological shorthand, if you will. A church’s basic beliefs came to be summed up with just a word or two, such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and church of Christ. It’s for that reason that I have no problem with someone calling me a “Baptist Christian” and have no problem calling you a “church of Christ Christian.” It’s merely theological shorthand.

    Andy, I assure you that I want to be biblical more than I want to be “Baptist.” You asked why I am a Baptist. As I’ve tried to communicate, I attend and pastor a Baptist church of Christ because I believe it to be the most biblical church, doctrinally and ecclessiologically. You said that the Baptist church cannot be found in the Bible, but I would argue that it’s precisely the church found in the Bible. No, the label is not there, but the substance is. Unfortunately, churches of your doctrinal stripe have claimed the official “church of Christ” name. Therefore, we call ourselves Baptist instead.

    Your last line of comment shows your gross misunderstanding of denominationalism. You said, “If you followed the Bible as your EXCLUSIVE rule of faith and practice, you could not be a Baptist, just a Christian. I would encourage you to give up the things that make you a Baptist and just follow what the Bible teaches about being a Christian.” As I’ve said, it’s precisely because of the Bible that I am what I am, and it’s precisely because of the Bible that Presbyterians and Methodists and Assemblies of God and churches of Christ and so on are what they are. The Bible has taken us to where we are. Unfortunately, the different groups understand the Bible differently. Therefore, division must be.

    I certainly appreciate that you want to be biblical above all else. I take you at your word. However, I would ask that you accept that I do as well and drop the polemical “sectarian” label.

  9. Ben, first of all, I appreciate your willingness to defend your beliefs. And I wish I had sufficient time to discuss these differences more in depth and in a timely manner. But I want to briefly address a few things you said in your last comment.

    You said: “Someone did not open up the New Testament and your “church of Christ” fall out.” The New Testament is where we find the pattern for the church, including how local churches are to be organized, what work they are to do, what their worship assemblies will look like, what doctrine they teach, etc. If we’re going to follow that pattern, it’s not going to happen by accident. Instead it requires diligence and humility to weed out and reject the teachings of man and follow exclusively the teachings of God.

    I did find your statement interesting that Baptist churches no longer called themselves churches of Christ (a phrase that is found in the Bible – Romans 16:16) but started calling themselves Baptist churches (a phrase that is not found in the Bible) because they did not want to be affiliated with “church of Christ” groups that practiced acapella singing (even though that is the only kind of music we see Christians using to offer praise to God – Ephesians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 14:15), taught that baptism is necessary (even though Peter said, “baptism now saves you” – 1 Peter 3:21) and that rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone (even though James said, “man is justified by works and not by faith alone” – James 2:24). What I think is immaterial. This is what the New Testament teaches. Therefore, we should believe and practice it, rather than do everything to distance ourselves from churches that believe and practice it.

    You said again, “doctrine divides.” It would be more accurate to say that false doctrine divides. The word ‘doctrine’ has a very negative connotation among many people in religion. But doctrine simply means teaching. If some doctrine is truth, then it is good. If some doctrine is false, then it is bad and leads people from the truth, thus causing division. Each denomination with its peculiar set of doctrines is divided from other denominations on that basis. You are correct in that. But this kind of division is not good. Paul told the troubled brethren in Corinth, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Division was not to be carelessly overlooked. They were to be in agreement and one in teaching and judgment. This is a condemnation of denominationalism.

    The last thing I wanted to be sure to address is something you said near the end: “…it’s precisely because of the Bible that Presbyterians and Methodists and Assemblies of God and churches of Christ and so on are what they are. The Bible has taken us to where we are. Unfortunately, the different groups understand the Bible differently. Therefore, division must be.” It is not “because of the Bible” that division exists. “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). And it is not just that “different groups understand the Bible differently,” it’s because people misunderstand the Bible. Paul said, “when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4). When Paul revealed things from God, he expected those who were taught to be able to come to the same understanding as he did, not that they would have their own different and conflicting understanding. If we disagree on a religious matter, at least one of us is wrong. It’s possible we both are, but we both cannot be right. You’re correct, we don’t exist in an “ecclessiological vacuum.” But that does not mean we cannot understand the Bible, nor does it mean that myriad religious beliefs and practices are acceptable.

  10. Ben Simpson says

    Andy, I’ve appreciated the discussion. Your last comment was full of some REALLY good stuff, such as:

    -“If we’re going to follow that pattern [of the New Testament], it’s not going to happen by accident. Instead it requires diligence and humility to weed out and reject the teachings of man and follow exclusively the teachings of God.”

    -“You said again, ‘doctrine divides.’ It would be more accurate to say that false doctrine divides.”

    -“Each denomination with its peculiar set of doctrines is divided from other denominations on that basis. You are correct in that. But this kind of division is not good.”

    -“If we disagree on a religious matter, at least one of us is wrong. It’s possible we both are, but we both cannot be right.”

    Thank you for these great insights, and I agree 100%.

    Now let say some final words. First, I said “doctrine divides” instead of “false doctrine divides” because those holding the various positions do not believe their position to be false. I believe based upon the Bible my position to be right and yours false, and you believe based upon the Bible your position to be right and mine false. As you correctly said, either both are wrong or one is, but both cannot be right. If it was not for sinful shortcomings, we would all believe the same thing. Unfortunately, that will have to wait until after the resurrection. Until then, we must remain divided or admit our error. I’m sure we’re both waiting for the other’s admittance. ;o)

    As for the Baptist churches distancing themselves from the “churches of Christ” and their doctrine, the historic Baptist churches believed they were distancing themselves from error. They and I respectfully say that you and yours do not rightly understand and apply Ephesians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 14:15, 1 Peter 3:21, and James 2:24. We would argue that you have departed from biblical doctrine and concocted a doctrine of man. Therefore, historical “Baptists” and I distance ourselves from the “churches of Christ” because we do not want to be affiliated with we believe to be false doctrines. We wish we could call ourselves “churches of Christ” because I think you are right in that that name is much better. Unfortunately, that name, from our perspective, has become too closely associated with unbiblical teaching. So, we gladly call ourselves “Baptists” as theological shorthand for what we believe to be correct doctrine.

    Thanks for the conversation, Andy! Blessings!

  11. Thanks again for the discussion, Ben. The word of God is truth (John 17:17), regardless of what either of us says about it. But I do think some of the passages I cited – particularly 1 Peter 3:21 and James 2:24 – speak for themselves. But I hope that both of us and anyone who considers these things will examine the Scriptures as the Bereans did in order to determine the truth (Acts 17:11).