Introduction
I am writing this paper because one of my fishing buddies who is a minister of the Disciples of Christ denomination believes that Baptism is part of the conversion process while I believe it is something the saved do in obedience to the Lord’s command and to testify publicly of their faith in Christ. We have had discussions back and forth with neither giving any ground. In this paper, I aim to address each scripture my friend quotes and determine if it supports his view or mine of Baptism.

The approach of this study
Though there are three major views according to Erickson’s Christian Theology: 1. Baptism as a Means of Saving Grace, 2. Baptism as a Sign and Seal of the Covenant, and 3. Baptism as a Token of Salvation, I am convinced that baptism is a picture of what Christ did for us and is a personal testimony that one believes the Gospel and accepts the free offer of salvation made possible through Christ’s death and resurrection. Thus, I do not believe it is part of the means of salvation. It follows salvation as an act of obedience and testimony. My reason for adhering to this belief is the fact that nowhere in the gospel of John is baptism mentioned as part of the conversion process. And, according to its author, its whole purpose was to lead people to salvation available to all through Christ. So, my approach will be to address my friend’s claims that the Bible teaches baptism is essential for salvation. The defense of his view is in chapter 8 of his book Prepared to Answer.

His topic “Evangelical Adult Baptism: The Wrong Relationship” page 103
Beginning the 2nd paragraph he says, “The definition of faith being used here is incomplete and highly dangerous to the souls of men.”

Comment: No definition of faith has been stated. He refers to “their definition” but never states it. So, I’ll state it for him. It means, in an attitude of repentance, trusting Jesus and His suffering and death on the cross to save you from your sins and reconcile you to God – I’ll refer to this view as sola fide (faith alone). His statement that “it is dangerous to the souls of men” presumes what he is trying to assert – that baptism is essential to salvation.

He goes on to claim that those who hold my view base it on the fact that many more passages mention faith than baptism and that we have to “explain away” the passages that mention baptism and twist some faith passages. Elsewhere, he said that scripture cannot contradict scripture, which I agree with. But, when we reconcile scriptures to one another, he calls it “explaining away”, and when he reconciles scripture to one another, it is explaining or clarifying. However, the claim of “explaining away” goes both directions.

He says we ignore the other passages that mention baptism. We don’t ignore them; we reconcile them to the sola fide view of salvation stated above. Check any evangelical Systematic Theology textbook, and you will find these passages on baptism are addressed and explained. Indeed, in this article, I will address each of the baptism passages he refers to and defend their reconciliation to sola fide.

Still on page 103 Acts 2:38
Acts 2:37-41, “37 Now when they heard this, they were [aj]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[ak]Brethren, [al]what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “[am]Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [an]souls.

Comment: Acts 2:38 is a key verse quoted by those who believe as my friend – call this belief baptismal conversion, meaning, in addition to faith, baptism is essential for salvation. Yes, they were baptized, but after repenting in verse 38 and after receiving the word in verse 41. Repenting is sometimes used to mean believing in Jesus and “receiving the word” implies they believed it. In both statements, baptism followed. One could argue that here baptism was part of the conversion experience, but one could also argue that it followed faith and was a public testimony of one’s faith in Christ for salvation. Further, in Peter’s very next recorded sermon in Acts 3:17-26, Erickson points out in his book Christian Theology, page 1099, that “the emphasis is upon repentance, conversion, and acceptance of Christ; there is no mention of baptism.”
Erickson continues. In Acts chapter 4 verses 8-12 where Peter is proclaiming Christ, the proclamation “centers upon the cruciality of belief in Jesus; once again there is no mention of baptism.”

In Acts 16:30 the Philippian jailor asked, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Erickson again points out that Paul did not mention baptism. However, Erickson adds, “We should not, however, pass over the fact that the whole household was baptized shortly thereafter.” After they were baptized, they “rejoiced [c]greatly, having believed in God.” (verse 34) Again, it was belief that was stressed. Erickson continues, “While there is a close and important connection between repentance and conversion on the one hand, and baptism on the other, these passages in Acts seem to indicate that the connection is not inseparable or absolute. Thus, unlike repentance and conversion, baptism is not indispensable to salvation. It seems, rather, that baptism may be an expression or a consequence of conversion.”

Other Acts passages that have baptism following belief include:
Acts 8:5,12, “ 5. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them.” 12. But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. [
Acts 8:36-38, “As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [[m]And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 And he ordered the [n]chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.”

Acts 18:7-8, “7 Then he left there and went to the house of a man named [b]Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

All three of these passages are cited as evidence by my friend that baptism is essential to salvation, but all three could also be taken to mean that they were saved through faith in Christ and then followed with baptism in obedience to proclaim their faith
.
Still on page 103 Romans 10:9-10
Romans 10:9-13, “9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be [d]disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.””

Comment: My friend says that we claim these verses are proof that we are saved without baptism. He says we take these verses out of context and that we cannot use these verses “to exclude baptism from the salvation process – for several reasons.”

Reason 1: Romans 10 follows Romans 6 “and in that chapter baptism is clearly taught to be part of dying to sin and being raised to begin a new life.” My response: First of all, I disagree with the assertion that Romans 6 proves baptism is essential to salvation. It is used as a metaphor or picture of our rebirth in Christ. It is symbolic of being buried (under the water) with Christ and raised (out of the water) in newness of life in Christ. In Romans 6 Paul was focused on urging Christians not to keep sinning. In Romans 10 Paul is focused on salvation – for Jews, yes, as my friend points out, but also applicable to Gentiles. Since the focus in chapter 10 is salvation, it would be even more reason to include baptism here if it were essential.

Reason 2: ““Trust” (believes) in verse 11 and “call on Him” in verse 12 go further than simply believing and confessing.” My friend asserts that “calling on the name of the Lord includes baptism.” He says this can readily be seen in Acts 2:21, 38, and in Acts 22:16. So, let’s examine these passages:

Acts 2:21, “‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Acts 2:38, “38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
There is nothing in Acts 2:21 about baptism being included in the calling of the Lord. My friend says it is implied when looking at verse 38, which he asserts proves that baptism is essential in the conversion process. We covered verse 38 already. We concluded It does not prove whether baptism is essential or not essential to salvation. It could be taken either way.

Acts 22:16, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’”
If calling on His name includes baptism, why is baptism listed separately? The calling on His name is about belief, belief that washes away your sins.

Reason 3: Paul had no reason to include baptism in Romans 10 because he was primarily addressing Jews, and Jews were familiar with the practice of baptism. Their problem was not believing Jesus was their Messiah. My answer: Yet, he was telling them what they must do to be saved. If baptism is essential, how can he leave it out?

In general, my friend is saying that whether faith, repentance, or baptism is mentioned in the process of conversion depends on the audience. In addition to baptism not needing to be mentioned to the Jews in Romans 10, he says Luke, as an example, leaves out faith because his audience was Gentile, and their greatest need was repentance. What about Mark’s and John’s gospels? Mark’s gospel was also written to the Gentiles, and he did not leave out faith or just focus on repentance. So, that logic is suspect. In fact, Mark 16:16 says, “16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Mark lists belief and baptism, but only lack of belief condemns a person, i.e. baptism is not essential to salvation.

I have already stated that John’s entire gospel omits baptism as a requirement for salvation, his gospel was for the whole world, and its explicit purpose was to lead people to salvation through Christ. My friend argued that John was written much later and the audience would have already been familiar with the need for baptism, so that’s why it was not mentioned. However, if baptism were essential for salvation, John not only would have mentioned it, he would have emphasized it.

Colossians 2:12 on page 105:
Colossians 2:12, “12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Comment: My friend says “We are raised to walk in a new life (as Romans 6:4 also mentions) through our personal faith in the power of God in the act of baptism itself. How can our “faith in the power of God” be transferred to another act (belief alone), and another time (before baptism), and still be acceptable? My answer: Our faith is not in the power of God in the act of baptism itself but in the power of God shown by raising Jesus from the dead. To his question “How can our “faith in the power of God” be transferred to another act (belief alone), and another time (before baptism), and still be acceptable?”, the answer is he is the one who transferred faith in the power of God to baptism itself instead of all the rest of scripture which points to the power of God in the cross and resurrection.
Colossians 2:11-13 (as could be done for Romans 6:3-8) is a good scripture to explain the true symbolism of baptism:

“11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh.” and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”

Explanation:
Verse 11 “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”
Comment: Paul uses circumcision of our fleshy nature by the work of Christ as a metaphor for our old self dying and having a new self upon being saved (regeneration)

Verse 12: “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
Comment: Our bodies were not literally buried with Christ in the tomb and raised from the grave with Christ – our bodies did not exist then. The act of baptism is a metaphor or picture of the old self dying as one is immersed in the water and the new self coming to life as one is raised up out of the water, and this regeneration (being born again spiritually) for each one is through faith in what God did for us in Christ (the working of God). The old nature being replaced with our new nature was not through our baptism but through our faith in what God did through Jesus. We were commanded to be baptized to make public our faith in Christ. Jesus said, “If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Father in heaven.” In Baptism we are doing the opposite of denying Christ, we are testifying of our faith in Him.

Verse 13: “When you were dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,”
Comment: “You were dead” and “uncircumcision of your flesh” are metaphors meaning before you were saved you were under the sentence of death because of your sins and you were still living as your sinful old self. While in that sinful state, God saved us making us spiritually alive and forgiven of our sins. Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

1 Peter 3:21 on page 106
1 Peter 3:20-21 “20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the [a]water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Comment: I will use the thorough answer at www.gotquestions.org for this question:
“Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? Here is an excerpt from their answer:

“Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).

Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament: “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word ‘counterpart.’

“So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type….Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.’ Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words ‘the answer of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, ‘by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”

Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).”

Does salvation by grace through faith contradict scripture? Page 106-107
My friend says that salvation by grace through faith and not including baptism as part of the conversion process “pits scripture against scripture and is therefore erroneous.” Because baptism is left out of a large majority of salvation scriptures, he is in the position of having to explain why. He says “Several answers can be given to this misconception of faith only.” He gives several ways he says explains it. One is claiming that faith is a common figure of speech (synecdoche) where the part is used for the whole. A second explanation is that salvation is like a recipe, and even though not mentioned in the majority of salvation passages, baptism is still part of the recipe.

A third explanation is that what scripture says about conversion is tailored to the specific person (s) and their circumstances, so sometimes baptism, even faith is left out. A fourth explanation is a claim that there are two types of faith – restricted faith which he defines as mental assent and is the case when faith plus something else like baptism is mentioned. The second type of faith he asserts he calls general or comprehensive faith which is the case when faith only is mentioned such as John 3:16.

In all of these, he is starting from the already drawn conclusion that baptism is essential to salvation, and he has to find a way to explain why the large majority of salvation passages do not include salvation. He is trying to reconcile the seeming situation of “scripture pit against scripture.” But, when we try to reconcile the seeming contradictions, he calls it “explaining away” our error. Both sides of the argument need to do the best they can at reconciling seeming contradictions in scripture. It is up to the reader to decide which view is more in line with the whole body of scripture. We agree that faith and baptism go together, though they are sometimes mentioned together and sometimes not. When they are mentioned together, we have differing views on the role of baptism, and both sides base their beliefs on scripture.

What about the thief on the cross who went to be with Jesus in paradise but was not baptized?
This is on pages 109-110. My friend explains that the reason the thief did not need to be baptized was because the New Covenant did not start until the Day of Pentecost. So, New Covenant baptism was not relevant for him. But, there are various views as to when the New Covenant started. One could argue it started at the Last Supper when Jesus said “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” In Grudem’s Systematic Theology, he says it started at Jesus’s death on the cross, and Jesus died before the thief did. In the Old Covenant, repeated animal sacrifices had to be done to cover the sins of the people. In the New Covenant, the death of Christ was the once for all time sacrifice that paid for the sins of the world. Logically then, the New Covenant started at Jesus‘s death on the cross, so I agree with Grudem. The example of the thief going to paradise (heaven) without being baptized under the New Covenant is a valid example of the truth that baptism is not essential for salvation.

Page 109 The marriage analogy
My friend says that salvation is analogous to marriage, and he cites Galatians 3:27, which happens to include baptism, as representative of the marriage ceremony. But we could choose any of the many other passages of one being saved that does not include baptism as representative of the marriage ceremony. Why? Because the church – all the saints – is the bride of Christ. We were “married” to Christ when we were saved. We agree on this, but it does not move the debate forward.

Page 109 Passages about getting “into Christ” all include baptism
My friend cites Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27 as the only NT passages that tell how to get into Christ, and these are all baptism passages. But, 1 Corinthians 12:13 is clearly referring to baptism of the Holy Spirit. Galatians 3:27 could also mean baptism of the Holy Spirit. Although my friend would disagree, the Romans 6 reference to water baptism is a metaphor or picture of the old self being replaced with the new self, not evidence that water baptism is essential to salvation.

Page 109 John 8:31-32 indicates more than faith is required
John 8:31-32, “31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” The NIV translation has “hold to my teaching” in place of “continue in my word.” Both translations imply faith evidenced by continued obedience. John 3:36 implies the same, “6 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not [a]obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” My friend and I agree on this, but it does not advance the debate.

Page 110-111 Not faith plus baptism
I agree with the statement, “The faithful person believes the facts in the Bible, trusts the promises in the Bible, and obeys the commands in the Bible.” But then my friend adds that we are commanded to be baptized, and therefore to be saved we must obey that command. But with that logic, why stop at baptism? Obedience to all Christ’s commands is required to be saved. But this is not grace, it is a works salvation, which is not biblical. All obedience is evidence that you have been saved. It is not what saves you.

Conclusion: I have shown that all the scriptures cited by my friend that he claims support baptismal conversion either support or do not contradict believer’s baptism. He is convinced of his view based on his arguments, but those arguments do not convince me. As stated at the beginning, the overriding reason I believe in believer’s baptism is that nowhere in the gospel of John, which was written to the world for the express purpose of causing people to be reconciled to God through Christ, does it include baptism as part of the conversion process. It proclaims faith in Christ in an attitude of repentance. I love my friend and good fishing buddy, but we will have to agree to disagree on this issue unless he changes his mind.