Baptism: Is it necessary for salvation?

I must confess, I am absolutely amazed that the fellowship of believers to which I belong, The Assemblies of God, has such a short nondescript doctrinal statement on such an important dogma of the church.

Here it is, in its entirety: "Baptism in Water—The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded in the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Savior and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life. (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 10:47,48; Romans 6:4)."

There is nothing wrong in what is said, it is what is left unsaid that troubles me. However, on the other hand, they are to be commended for letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. One need not go further than those listed for a clear understanindg of water baptism (i.e., Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 10:47,48; Romans 6:4).

Yes, water baptism does appear in Scripture to be by immersion; and the Greek of Scripture seems to authenticate that position. The meaning of the word baptizo (βαπτίζω) means to dip, sink, or “to dip repeatedly,” to submerge.” (Thayer, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). Which, the early church took very seriously, for we find that "For the first three centuries the most universal practice of baptism was.... that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water" (Christian Institutions, p. 21).

Interestingly enough, many of the Church fathers insisted on submerging the baptized three times, once for the Father, one for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit—or, as some felt, once for Christ’s death, once for His burial, and once for His resurrection. So, those Christians among us who get sprinkled with a little water at the baptismal font are fortunate, I suppose, to not have to be almost drowned before they are finally baptized!

The Didache (100-150 A.D.), which is one of the earliest Christian treatise, a kind of pastoral manual or catechistic handbook for Christians of that era, has this to say, "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm . . . . But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

This practice, or one very similar to it is still used by the Greek Orthodox Church, and others.

Church historian Dean Stanley sums it up with: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism-the very meaning of the word-was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost monstrous case..... A few drops of water are now the western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing river or the wide baptisteries of the East" (History of Eastern Church, 28).

From a historical perspective, there can be little doubt that he is correct about this. But, does that make it Scriptural?

Well, yes, and no. Baptism was and is primarily an occasion to confession of faith in obedience to a commandment of Christ, that all disciples are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.

“And, what is that name?” my good Sabellianistic friends of the United Pentecostal Church of God ask rhetorically. Of course, the answer they give is that that is Jesus, for in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 Well, I certainly agree that what Paul says in that verse, but only in light of chapter 1, verse 19, which reads, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [Jesus]. . . .”

Furthermore, these modern day, Nontrinitarians need go no farther that the Acts 19: 1-7, which reads, "While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

So, the question remains, why was Paul so prompt to ask, "Then what baptism did you receive?" The obvious answer is, because he knew that if they had been baptized properly, they would have hear of the Holy Spirit, for it was right there in the formula for them to hear.

Now, let us move onto the question posed in the title of this article. That is, is baptism necessary for salvation?

The answer is, as a sacramental act, no. Why do I say this, simply because at the baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), these band of Italians, as they were known, received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues prior to baptism. No one, I do not believe, can argue that one can receive the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues and not be a child of God.

The truth is, however, all good children are obedient to the will of their father, and this is no exception. Cornelius and the aforemention Ephesian group of 12 were baptized immediately—which, incidentally, was a common practice throughout New Testament time; that is, to be baptized immediately following conversion.

So, it is not necessary to argue with the Cambellites who adhere to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration—although, some will deny this; and say that salvation, which requires obedience is completed in this act of obedience. To put it briefly, it is their position that baptism does not save you—God does that—however, God will not save you until you are baptized, according to their doctrne.

Which leaves one wondering if this is not more the doctrine of man than of God?

So, what is the bottom line. The bottom line from my perspective is obedience is unto baptism. We should by all means receive baptism to confirm our new birth; however, should one come to Christ while riding a camel across the Sahara desert, and then get blown away in a dust storm, withering, dehydrated and dead, one need not worry. Their eternal soul will rest in good hands.

Jim R