I have given you the correct teaching about baptism in the main chapter of this book. However, you will find much (seemingly endless) debate, discussion, and disagreement about whether baptism is a required element for salvation, as well as how it is to be performed. The minds of men love to make (false) doctrinal mountains out of molehills by distorting, diluting, and obfuscating the very simple teachings of the Bible. Some also falsely teach and perform “infant” baptism and baptism by “sprinkling.” Neither is in agreement with Scripture.
Some Christian churches and groups falsely teach that baptism is not a required element of salvation, that it is a “good work” done by man. They then build that incorrect position into a dispute of monumental and biblical proportions (pun intended). In fact, arguments over this one simple teaching of the Bible have led to serious and seemingly endless divisions within the church, and hundreds of books have been written to defend whatever doctrine a particular group thought was right. Amazing the folly of man, yes? But we are called to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints” in Scripture and not be deceived by the doctrines or “traditions” conjured up by man. Because baptism is such a fundamental and important part of the gospel message and the plan of redemption/salvation for a Christian, I, therefore, want to go into this subject in some detail.
Some of the reasons various groups give as to why baptism is not a required element of salvation are listed below, along with my response:
- Baptism is a “good work”: First, this shows a complete misunderstanding of what a “good work” is. A good work is something that is done (after conversion and in obedience to the teachings/commands of Christ) that benefits someone else, not yourself. Second, how can having someone else immerse you in water be considered a “good work” on your part at all? It is not even you who is doing the work of dunking yourself! Third, and most importantly, it is Christ (not you) who is actually doing all the work at your baptism. It is He who is forgiving your sins, not you! He is the one who is redeeming you and cleansing you of sin by His shed blood on the cross – there is nothing anyone can do to buy or earn forgiveness of sins (e.g., through good works, or any works whatsoever). So, give glory to Jesus and let Him do His work in you at baptism.
- The second half of Mark 16:16 doesn’t mention baptism: This claim asserts that since the first half of Mark 16:16 mentions baptism but the second half doesn’t; therefore, baptism is not a required element of salvation. In response, I say, please use logic and common sense: there is no need to mention baptism (or repentance, confession, obedience, perseverance, etc.) in the second part of the verse because without faith, one is condemned regardless of whether one is dunked in water or not, so it would be completely redundant to mention it in this part of the verse – it is simply not needed. Wayne Jackson writes : “After introducing the person who ‘believes not,’ why in the name of common sense would it be necessary for the Lord to list additional items of rebellion, in order to emphasize the unbeliever’s state of condemnation?” Furthermore, if one adopts their (wrong) logic, one must also say that since the first part of Mark 16:16 doesn’t mention repentance, that repentance, therefore, isn’t required for salvation either! I think (and hope) no clear-thinking Christian will adopt that position. As you can see, they are using different (and inconsistent) rules of logic for the two parts of Mark 16:16. When you point this out to those who deny baptism on this basis, they don’t seem to be able to see their error in logic and resulting inconsistency. Even beyond the simple logic error, one must consider the sum total of what Scripture teaches on any particular subject in order to arrive at truth and correct doctrine (Psalm 119:160). It is true that various verses call out and stress certain elements of salvation at times for various reasons, but you cannot create a gospel doctrine that agrees with some verses and contradicts others – your doctrine must harmonize true across all of Scripture, for Scripture is 100% correct and never contradicts itself. No matter what you think or believe, if it contracts even so much as one single clear and unambiguous verse of Scripture, it is not Scripture that is wrong; it is your interpretation that is wrong. This is one of the most common causes of false teachings.
- The Cornelius conversion (Acts 10:1-23): The claim made here is that since Cornelius et al. received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized, this also applies to all believers today, and therefore baptism isn’t required for salvation (or to receive the Holy Spirit). What this fails to recognize is that the Cornelius conversion was a special case – it signified the expansion of the gospel message to the gentiles. In this Cornelius case, the Spirit was specifically given here as a sign to Peter that salvation is now also to the gentiles. Without such a sign, Peter (et al.) would not have started giving the gospel to the gentiles, so this event was a special and unique confirmation by the Spirit and recorded for us in Scripture.
- Paul did not go to baptize, so baptism isn’t required: This is a generalization from 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 that isn’t warranted in Scripture or supported by logic. The context of those verses is concerning a problem that some in Corinth were being puffed up (proud) because they were baptized by the great apostle Paul and hence felt superior to others – they were unduly identifying with Paul instead of with the gospel as a whole and with Christ. What Paul is trying to get across here is that it is the gospel message itself that is important (including baptism!), not the particular person who happens to immerse you in the water! Nothing about this section of Scripture contradicts or denies the very clear and unambiguous teachings on baptism given elsewhere. Even further, let’s press this false interpretation to the ultimate pinnacle: In exactly similar fashion in John 4:1-2, it is noted that Jesus Himself didn’t personally baptize anyone (His disciples did), so by way of analogy, one would have to conclude that by John 4:1-2 baptism isn’t necessary either – despite Jesus clear teaching to the contrary! Once again, it is the pride of man which is in focus here, not whether baptism is required. Please think about this using yourself as a test case – imagine if Jesus personally baptized you Himself, do you not see how pride could result and that you might feel superior to others, even other brothers and sisters in Christ? I do! That is the point being made here in both passages of Scripture. These verses have nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of baptism as a required element for salvation. Jesus, and Paul, wanted to avoid pride resulting from an association with who (or Who) did the baptismal immersion…that is all.
- The deserted island (or middle of a desert) straw-man argument: Some make the argument: Since a person stranded on a deserted island (or in the middle of a desert without water) can’t be baptized; therefore, baptism is not required for salvation by anyone. This argument doesn’t really need a response, as it’s completely ridiculous, spurious, and does absolutely nothing to defend their teaching. However, if you find yourself in one of those locations and accept Christ there, rest assured that Christ will find a way to allow you to be saved properly. Franky, I’m surprised they don’t also argue: “What if you are on the moon and accept Christ?” as a proof case against baptism. Instead of worrying about a hypothetical fictional case that applies to literally no one, the focus should be on the clear Scriptures that do apply to you.
- The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized, so it’s not required: First of all, the thief on the cross who accepted Christ actually did so and died under Old Testament Mosaic Law – the New Covenant didn’t take effect until Christ’s death and resurrection. Furthermore, he may have been baptized; we do not know. Scripture doesn’t say whether he was or wasn’t. The thief seems to be familiar with Christ and His teachings, at least to some extent. But let’s assume for argument’s sake that he wasn’t. Christ, who is God Almighty Himself, can do whatever He pleases, whenever He pleases! He can make any special exceptions He deems necessary or pleasing to His will – who are we to say otherwise? While on earth, Jesus repeatedly forgave the sins of various people, like the thief. But to make a general case of this wonderful special conversion and demonstration of grace is a travesty of logic and flies in the face of other clear and unambiguous verses about baptism. Now let’s press this argument to its logical conclusion – I’m willing to concede that if a) you find yourself hanging on a cross, and b) you are hanging right next to Christ at the same time, then yes, you too may be saved simply by Christ’s proclamation over you without baptism. But that simply doesn’t apply to any of us today, does it? So why use this case to deny baptism in the face of clear Scripture to the contrary?
- It’s what we’ve been teaching for a long time, so it must be correct. Yes, I have actually run across this claim, which goes like this (paraphrasing): “Well, we have been teaching that baptism is not required for many hundreds of years, so we must be right.” Yes, some actually think that somehow saying this adds credibility to their position, but the fact that they have been teaching something (wrongly) for any period of time does absolutely nothing whatsoever to bolster their defense that the teaching is correct. If one adopts their own logic here, then they must also concede that the Roman Catholic Church could therefore come along right after them and say: “Well, since we have been teaching (falsely) on matters of doctrine for nearly 2000 years, our teachings must be even more correct”! I hope you can see the ridiculousness of this argument.
It is interesting to note that those who adopt the position that baptism isn’t required also teach that one can casually and nonchalantly decide to wander in and get baptized whenever you want to, any time after you accept Christ – even days, weeks, months, and years later! I’m paraphrasing their teaching again, but you understand the point. After all, since they teach that baptism is not required, there is, therefore, no rush or urgency about doing it. But be not deceived; there is not a single instance in Scripture that supports this position. In every single case, without exception, those who received and accepted the good news of the gospel in Scripture were immediately baptized! There are no exceptions.
Please do not be confused or deceived by those using strange logic. Adhere to the simple gospel message and its clear teaching about baptism: one is not born again until after one has: heard the gospel message, believed in Christ, repented of their sins, confessed Christ, and is baptized by immersion for the forgiveness of sins. It is at baptism that you die (are buried) to your old self and are raised to life a new creature in Christ. It is also at baptism when you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The bottom line (in truth) is: if you’ve just believed, repented, and confessed Christ, get baptized as soon as possible by immersion for the forgiveness of sins! It’s just that simple. There’s no valid excuse not to be baptized or to keep putting it off. Scripture speaks very simply, explicitly, and plainly for itself regarding baptism.
Wayne Jackson also writes on the topic of baptism: 
And further: 
And to those who teach and preach false doctrine regarding baptism, I say you now know better having read the truth of what Scripture actually teaches, so if you continue to teach and preach in contradiction to Scripture, you must beware (James 3:1). Wayne Jackson echoes the same sentiment succinctly: 
I next present this commentary by Matthew Henry (on Acts 2:38), where I think he summarizes things nicely: 
To the above, I say Amen! And two further examples are given. It is written:
Or to state the inverse of that verse to draw out the inescapable logical conclusion: you who have not been baptized have not clothed yourselves with Christ. Conclusion: baptism is not optional.
And then Ananias, under direction from the Lord, says to Paul (formerly Saul) as a just converted apostle after his experience on the road to Damascus:
So, I ask you, how can one “wash away” their sins without being baptized? Further, if it wasn’t required, why would it be given as a command at all? Therefore, I ask you again, can you “wash away” your sins without being baptized? Clearly, Scripture says no
I want to close this false teaching with a note of encouragement and understanding for those who are reading this book after being taught and believe that baptism is not required for salvation. Please know that I understand how difficult you will struggle with this topic. You see, I was once like you, having the same belief that baptism is not required for salvation and that it was a “good work” of man, as that was the only thing I was ever taught or had heard preached (or read). It was a MIGHTY struggle indeed to concede that my beliefs were not in agreement with Scripture. So, I understand the tremendous difficulty you will have in breaking free from this false teaching. It’s not unlike the extraordinary difficulty one has in trying to break the flesh free from a sinful habit or addiction. It’s extremely hard, and it takes the power of God; it will be the same with this topic.
I also understand that you might resist the correct teaching on baptism as explained in this book because you are afraid that by doing so, you would be diminishing what Christ did on the cross. However, if you persevere in truth, you will come to see that the correct teaching on baptism doesn’t diminish the cross or Christ one iota. In fact, it is further glorifying the Lord as you will have come to a correct knowledge and understanding of the truth of Scripture.
SHOULD I BE RE-BAPTIZED?
For the Christian reader who may be hearing the truth about baptism for the first time and who may have been baptized prior by “sprinkling,” or as an “infant,” or in a church which teaches that baptism is a “good work of man,” or that baptism is merely “an outward sign of an inward grace/faith done out of obedience” (i.e., not for the forgiveness of sins), it would be very wise to consider being re-baptized now that you know the truth of what Scripture actually teaches. I was re-baptized in a Church of Christ myself after I learned the truth, and I strongly suggest that you do likewise – remember, it is your eternal destiny which is at stake here. I don’t know about you, but I wanted to be re-baptized into the correct gospel and into truth – and I do not want to take any chances whatsoever on my eternal salvation!