If baptism is essential, then why am I told it's okay not to

[email]

To whomever receives this.

Although I've been raised in a Christ-following home, this idea of baptism has never really been approached. While two of my older siblings and my parents have been baptized, I have always been taught or at least led to believe that this is not "essential." Recently, I friend of mine approached me on her wanting to get baptized and the conversation led us to ask if it was necessary. After reading the article on this site "The Importance of Baptism," the author through the Biblical text he provided and my own contextual cross-reference, has led me to believe that it very well may be. But my question now is, why have I been told otherwise? In my home church, at a camp I've gone to, even from my own parents, I have only heard it is a "public announcement" of my faith in the One True God. The cliche salvation verse is John 3:16, in which it is stated that "that all who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." In such words and words to follow, it mentions nothing of the baptism as being required. But later, Jesus himself, once his is matured and begun His leading of the apostles, asks John to baptize Him as was custom. At the moment of His baptism, the Gospel of John claims: "'I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.'" So is baptism as much required for salvation? or just the descending of the Holy Spirit upon us? John goes on to say, "upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus baptizes in His blood (or rather, did baptize), then why is this ceremony, that had been practiced before His coming and crucifixion, be required beyond?

I do not ask the questions in criticism, only to understand. Is the answer to the salvation question "believe?" or "believe and be baptized?" If I lead someone to sincere prayer for forgiveness, must I also lead them to baptism? and before I do either, must I too be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit? These are the many questions of a confused and searching mind. I don't know if I will get a personal answer, or just a computerized newsletter, but I only seek guidance.

With greatest appreciation and love in Christ

[m273p15c]

Thanks for the excellent questions! Unfortunately, our automated, computerized responder was not working, so I must answer this one by hand. You have touched on several key topics, so please bear with me.

You situation is not too far removed from that of Apollos or Paul, although their cases were far more exaggerated. Both of these men were sincere, God fearing, and devout. However, because they knew no better, they practiced an incomplete and misguided religion for many years. As you know, Jesus intervened directly in Paul's life to enable him to serve as a witness and apostle (Acts 22:12-15; 24:14-18). Afterward, we know Paul fasted without food or drink for 3 days, while contemplating these events (Acts 9:9). During that time, do you think he agonized over the knowledge and memory of persecuting Christians, compelling them to blaspheme, even putting some to death (Acts 22:4-5)!? Ananias was instructed by the Lord to tell Paul what to do (Acts 9:10-16). Maybe Paul was struggling with the grief and magnitude of his error, but for some reason, Ananias finally goaded him:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)

Whenever we stand at the precipice of a new understanding, it is natural to feel grief, agony, bewilderment, and even frustration over the past. However, we must not worry about the past as much as we should look to the future! Paul's advice seems appropriate here:

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14)

No matter where we are, this is appropriate advice. If this applied to Paul with his heinous sin, how much more will it apply to you and I? What is more important? How you and I came to this spot, or what we are going to do now with our new knowledge? I am moved by your obviously sincere concern, but I want to encourage you to focus on the Bible teaching regarding baptism. If you decide to be baptized, then over time, I think you will come to understand more about the events that have led you here.

As I mentioned earlier, Apollos is another interesting example. According to Acts 18:24-28, we learn that Apollos was a zealous man, teaching and converting others; however, he only knew the gospel up to the baptism of John (Acts 18:25). Apparently, he was unaware of the events following Christ's death (establishment of the church, the great commission, baptism in the name of Jesus, etc.). Please read the passage and note that the Bible says nothing about how he got to this point in his life. Although they surely were significant, they are not as important as his reaction to the truth, which is detailed in Scripture: Somehow (God's providence?) Apollos' path crossed that of Aquila and Priscilla, two Christian friends of Paul. They "took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26). How did he react? He accepted the truth, pressed on, and "he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 18:27-28).

Dear friend, my advice for your heart is to follow the example of these men. Although you will certainly be grieved and struggle with the past, try to focus on the future. Think of all the people these two men helped, after they realized and obeyed the truth. Think of the future for you. What could you do?

Getting back to your Bible questions, the case of Apollos is still relevant. After we learn of Apollos' conversion, we are given the following account of men, who had most likely been converted by Apollos before he knew the full truth:

And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would 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 hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

Detailed study of this passage shed's light on the rest of your questions. First note that "John's baptism" and "baptism in the name of Jesus" are not the same. Otherwise, why did these men have to be baptized again? Second, please notice that John's baptism had a limited duration. Because John's baptism was intended to prepare people for Jesus' coming (Malachi 4:5-6; Matthew 3:1-6; 11:7-15), its commission closed somewhere after Jesus' arrival, certainly before His death and resurrection. After Jesus' resurrection and issuing of the great commission, people were to be baptized in the name of Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). This is evidenced in this passage by their need to be baptized again. John's baptism was not sufficient! Third, please notice that these people received the Holy Spirit after baptism and by the laying on of an apostle's hands (compare also to Acts 8:14-18). This endowment of the Holy Spirit produced the ability to work miracles ("they spoke with tongues and prophesied"). Therefore, we learn that the miraculous endowment of the Holy Spirit only comes after one is baptized and after the miraculous gift is conferred from an apostle!

Regarding the Holy Spirit, it may seem confusing at first, but there are at least 4 separate manifestations of the Holy Spirit in Christian's lives, as recorded in Scripture:

1. Miraculous Indwelling of the Holy Spirit - As demonstrated in the above verses, this gift manifests itself through miraculous sings, which were intended to reveal truth and confirm it during the 1st century (See also: Hebrews 2:3-4; I Corinthians 12:4-13; 27-31; 13:8-10; 14:1-5).
2. Apostolic Power to bestow the Holy Spirit - As again demonstrated in the above account, the ability to work such miracles (#1) could only be performed by apostles (see also Acts 8:14-19; II Timothy 1:6). As such, it was a proof of their apostleship (II Corinthians 12:12). Of course, once all the apostles died, it was impossible to transfer the gift, and miracles soon ceased. Therefore #1 and #2 have both served their purpose.
3. Baptism of the Holy Spirit - This is a very special and rare baptism, performed by Jesus from heaven. This baptism is a distinct and separate baptism from John's baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus. Both of these baptisms are performed by men in water, while the other is performed by Jesus from heaven "in" the Holy Spirit. This is a figurative baptism, where one is immersed or overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit. It also manifests itself as the ability to work miracles. However, there are two distinct features of this power when compared with #1 and #2: First, it occurred before water baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 10:44-48). Second, it only occurred twice in all of history. It was never promised or recorded as being a general baptism that was given to all men.
   
   (Baptism in the Holy Spirit happened to the apostles on Pentecost to enable demonstration of God's approval for Jews to enter the kingdom or church, Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-4, 14-21, 37-38. The second and only other recorded occurrence was to Cornelius and his family, Acts 10. They received the Holy Spirit in such a way to again demonstrate God's approval to enter the kingdom - but for the first Gentiles, Acts 10:44-48! Notice how this event stirred a huge ruckus among the Jews, who met and deliberated the meaning in Acts 11. Finally, Peter calls attention to their baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the only other comparable occasion he cites is their baptism in the Holy Spirit "at the beginning", a reference to Acts 2:1-4.)
4. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit by Faith - Lastly, the Holy Spirit dwells in all Christians by faith, as does the Father and the Son (Ephesians 3:17; John 14:23-24). However, all three of these dwellings occur by our learning of the Word, believing it, and obeying it (John 15:1-11). Since this gift requires obedience to Jesus' commands, it is only available to those who have obeyed Jesus' command to be baptized (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).

You can read more about the various baptisms here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ptism.html

Now to directly answer your questions, yes, baptism is required for salvation, because one's sins are forgiven at that point:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38)

Why? Because we only begin a "new life" after we come into spiritual contact with Jesus' saving blood at baptism:

... How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. ... (Romans 6:2-7)

Baptism continues after the preaching of John, because it is a new and separate baptism, commanded by Jesus (Matthew 28:18-10; Mark 16:15-16). This baptism is not to receive miraculous dwelling of the Holy Spirit (see above), but it is a requirement to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by faith or through the Word of God.

I pray you find this helpful. If you have any questions, please let me know. I am always glad to help others and study the Bible.

[email]

Mr. m273p15c,

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to do this for me. And as much as I would love to say I am convinced, I cannot. Perhaps it is my skeptical side of my previous teaching that keeps me doubtful, but I still am torn. I just have a few more questions, and then I know I'll be on my own with God.
I understand all your scriptural references, but I still am unconvinced by them. The Word of God is the only Truth I know I can trust, but the interpretations of man, whoever they be, can be flawed. I still have trouble believing that my salvation can be so dependent on such a trivial ceremony. One passage of Jesus' Crucifixion came up and I have a question about it:

"But the other (on of the thieves) answering rebuked him (the previous thief), saying Dost not thou fear God. seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:40-43

This man surely wasn't baptized, yet he was given the reassurance by Jesus Himself that he would be saved. Does this mean he was made an exception? And if so, why would God make an exception for one man, and deny the rest? Romans also has said, "By grace we are saved, not by works, lest any man should boast." I can't help but question whether baptism is one of these "works" or part of "faith." I don't believe that God would create such a requirement which could risk being skewed by man. Be it symbolism or not, I do not see power of forgiveness poured by any man's hand besides that of God. And yet, the Bible's words make me halt. Please, if I am interpreting this wrong, I need to know. Ultimately, I know this will boil down to a decision of faith, but never before have I had it questioned so. I thank you greatly for what you are doing for me, Mr. m273p15c.

Sincerely questioning

[m273p15c]

Thanks for the good follow-up questions. I will be happy to answer as many questions as you may have. It's good to know that you are thinking about this, being careful, and testing all things according to the standard, as we have all been commanded (I John 4:1, 6).

Please suffer me to offer one comment before addressing your questions. About interpretations, I often get the response, "Well, that's your interpretation!" This usually comes at the close of a study, when a person can no longer deal with the force of Scripture, so they assign it to me, which is far easier for their conscience to dismiss. Please be very careful here. If you read the Scriptures that I reference, I think you will find that my points often come directly from Scripture. But, you must decide if that's true.

Please be careful about labeling baptism a "trivial ceremony". God frequently chooses "stumbling stones" to manifest those who truly trust Him. Jesus Himself is the ultimate stumbling stone (I Peter 2:6-8). Most of the Jews, who were raised as God's chosen people, could not accept that the Messiah was poor, from Nazareth, a carpenter, untrained by the Pharisees and scribes, and - most importantly - not a carnal king to redeem carnal Israel (John 18:33-37). Because they had made up their mind, they could not recognize Him. Please read I Corinthians 1:18-31. God has deliberately chosen to "save those who believe", "through the foolishness of the message preached" (I Corinthians 1:21).

You see, baptism does not eliminate faith. Baptism mandates faith! Who could believe that being immersed in water would have anything to do with salvation? But, yet it clearly does!

... in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... (I Peter 3:20-21)

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. ... (Ephesians 5:25-27)

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38)

The Bible says that baptism is critically linked to faith. Any belief that sets baptism in opposition to grace or faith is missing something. Please notice these passages which show the essential nature of baptism while connecting it to faith:

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses... (Colossians 2:11-13)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ... And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

Please notice that baptism is the point where the body of sin is done away, which is consistent with Romans 6. Before that point, we were dead in "uncircumcision of your flesh", but afterward, "made alive together with Him". Again, this is very consistent and reminiscent of the language from Romans 6:1-7. But, the key here is to notice that we are buried in baptism, because we believe He will resurrect us from our sinful state ("through faith")!

Also, please notice from the above passages that the effective portion of this baptism is performed by Christ. There is no power in man's hands to deny or authorize this action. Like the Ethiopian eunuch, we could ask, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). Please notice Philip's response:

Then 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." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:37-38)

Now getting back to "works" versus "faith", the key here is to let Paul define how he uses "works" in Romans 4:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness ... (Romans 4:2-5)

In this passage, "works" are anything that nullifies grace and places God in our debt! Amazingly, many of the Jews, to whom the book was written, thought they could do that very thing by keeping the law (Romans 2:17-20)! Paul has already established that plan requires perfect keeping of the law (Romans 2:21-29), which they had not done, of course. At this point in the book (Romans 4), he is demonstrating how their misguided efforts also nullify grace, leaving them hopeless (see also Romans 3:23; 9:31-10:3).

By the Bible definition, baptism cannot fall into this category, because it requires faith, which is predicated and virtually synonymous with grace (Colossians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 6:2-8)!

By our own understanding, baptism cannot fall into this category. First, ask yourself, "Is it reasonable that being immersed in water can earn or merit one's salvation?" "Is one act worth the salvation of the soul?" Clearly not! Therefore, baptism cannot nullify grace. Moreover, after all the baptisms I have attended, I have never seen anybody's sins floating in the water. :-) We trust that God has forgiven our sins. We cannot see, sense, or test that forgiveness (Mark 2:9-10), but yet everyone feels incredible relief and joy. Why? How? Because they trust God to keep His promise to forgive our sins at baptism (Acts 2:37-38)! Therefore, baptism demands faith!

Consequently, Romans 4 does apply to baptism, because Paul's own definition for "works" cannot be applied to baptism.

Finally, the thief on the cross is discussed in more detail here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/thief.html

However, I'll offer you a short summary: The thief was an exception in multiple ways. First, he lived under a different covenant, and therefore, he was never subject to baptism (Romans 7:1-7). Second, who is to say that he never had been baptized, at least according to John's preaching? Remember, he already new enough about Jesus to ask Him to remember him in "the kingdom", a word never mentioned on the cross! Third, I do not doubt that he received special mercy, because he did not have opportunity to satisfy the requirements of the Old Law (required trespass offering, at least). Jesus could extend unpromised mercy, because He was the Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:11-12). He has the right to offer forgiveness of sins on whatever basis He chooses, as on previous occasions (Matthew 9:1-6; Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-11), although we know it is ultimately a measure of faith (Hebrews 11:6; Mark 2:5; Luke 7:50).

But, here's the lesson: If Jesus made an exception for the thief, who are we to say that we will be saved by that exception too? God has never dealt mercifully with presumption (Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 14:40-45; 15:30-31; Deuteronomy 17:12-13; Psalm 19:13; II Peter 2:9-10). We must be very careful here. Remember, the thief was doing the best that he could at that time. Are we doing the best that we can, if we walk away from the Scriptures' teaching on baptism?

Lastly, please consider a survey of the book of Acts. How were all those people converted? We have a summary chart here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/salvation.html

If you want to read more about "grace versus works", there have been several discussions held on this topic on our forums:

about397.html
about297.html
about108.html
about45.html
about18.html
...
Well, I have probably given you more material that you anticipated. But, I would encourage you to take your time, read all the Scriptures and reread them, and make a decision based on Scripture.

Thanks again for your eagerness in understanding the truth on this matter.

May God help us to have a sincere love of the truth,

m273p15c

[m273p15c]

I had not heard from you in a few days, so I wanted to check on you, and see how you were doing.

What did you think about the latest response? How are you doing, wrestling with these verses and your previous convictions? Did you have any other questions?

May God help us to have open ears and honest hearts,

m273p15c

[email]

Mr. m273p15c,

Thank you for checking up on me . Your responses are greatly appreciated and now I think I have it figured out of what I believe in my heart and between God. This week has been a hard one dealing with the end of the school year, events, and friend crises too. I can't go into the depth of the research I've been doing, but I'll at least tell you where I stand now (then it's off to study for a history final ).

In short, I realized I was sticking my head in the wrong hole, as it were. I was so conserned about the ceremony itself being important, I failed to see the faith behind it. The verses you provided were helpful, but I saw something else in them that I hadn't seen before. My first revelation came when by chance, my sunday school class briefly brought up the subject and we looked at the origins and meaning of the original ceremony, the hebrew word, and it's meaning. From our previous conversations, I'd grown to view baptism as a sort of washing, but in reality, it's more of a marking, in a way. The word baptizo comes from the hebrew process of dyeing textiles and has no english equivilant and therefore, we have adopted the word "baptism." It refers to the process in which a textile is dipped in a dye and assumes the identity of that dye. Which now leads me to my belief.

One verse in a passage you gave me stood out. All the others I couldn't help interpret baptism as more of a metaphorical term instead of literal, but afriad of my bias, I stepped away from those and began looking for that which I couldn't misinterpret. I settled on the verse in Mark 16 in Jesus's "Great Commission" to the apostles. I can't quote it exactly due to my time, but it said something like "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned." I couldn't help but stop and really think about what Jesus was saying. He basically says, you have to believe and be baptized to be saved. But then, He goes on to say the if you do not believe you shall be condemned, not do not be baptized. My first thought was "you're digging for excuses for youself here..." but I couldnt' get this off my mind. Then when that sunday school lesson rolled around that very sunday, it all kinda fit together. How can somone believe, and not be baptized?

It is not the ceremony itself, but the faith behind it. I can honestly love Christ with all my heart, soul, and mind (if that is indeed possible with our human nature) and not be baptized for some strange reason out of my control and my faith would still merit. But if I am given the chance to be baptized, why shouldn't I? If I truly want to live for Christ, live for His love, to show His love to the world, why wouldn't I identify myself with Him? It's almost like being a part of the US navy and never putting on the uniform: I could go around claiming I was a soldier, but no one would have reason to believe me. And if I did that by choice (not being baptized) then one would have reason to doubt my faith. If I truly want to live for God, be a symbol to others pointing to God, then why don't I put on the uniform? be baptized in His blood? Not to have my sins forgiven, but to be identified that I have been saved and washed by His blood. Works without faith are useless, and just as equally "Faith without works is dead." Works and ceremonies won't save my soul, but corner booth faith won't either. "There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ... " (I Peter 3:20-21). This is my way of declaring to the world, myself, and God that I am His and He is mine.

Jesus didn't need to be saved by baptism, but He wanted to be associated with John's teaching and therefore confirm what John was teaching. We are called to "put on the whole armor of God." How can we do that if we don't even put on the uniform?I realize now that I've been trying to lead a Soldier in the Lord's Army's life without letting people know I'm part of it. The best way I can do that is by following the age old display of faith in baptism. No, my sins won't be floating in the water afterwards. My old rags of sin are left nailed to the cross, and now it is time for me to assume the crimson washed garb of a Christ follower.

So in many words, there is where I stand. Through prayer of others, your selfless help, and God's grace, I believe I can rely on that conclusion. And while I can't claim to be perfect or know all there is to the Bible, I can at least cling to the "foolishness" of my faith in God and His Word.

Once again, m273p15c, I thank you so very much for enduring with me and answering all my questions so faithfully. Please know that I'm not done yet! I know I have much left to learn, and as always, I'm am welcome to any words of guidance, correction, or advice you can give. I can honestly say you have changed my life for the better and helped (and are still helping) me through a God-given challenge in my life.

With the deapest love in Christ I can claim

Still searching

[m273p15c]

It looks like you have come a long way. Congratulations! You are to be commended for your honesty and commitment to truth. Of course, the ultimate praise belongs to God who makes all things possible. But, you have done well!

About your research on baptizo, what books did you consult for the origin of this Greek word?

How do you think James 2:14-26 relates to the function of baptism, if it relates?

One last question, do you believe that baptism is generally (not concerned with exceptions) required "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:37-38)? As a corollary, what does the saving in I Peter 3:20-21?

I look forward to your answers!

May God help us to have open eyes and hearts,

m273p15c

[email]

Mr. m273p15c,

Once again, I have to thank you for checking up on me. It seems like whenever you do, you have nothing but good, honest words that do nothing but encourage me to make sure of the rock I'm anchored to. To answer your first reference question,the class I am taking is derived from a book by John R. Cross, called the Stranger on the Road to Emmaus and is published by Good Seed International.The reference I got came from Chapter 10, section 4, page 182, but it was our leader in this study that told about the word baptizo (which I actually figured out was Greek indeed my own typo mistake). Doing some following up research, I found it on a website, http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907:
"Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution."
As for James 2:14-26, it seems to state the importance of the faith/deed equations clearly: Faith without deeds, without proof of that faith, is dead. For how can a soldier claim to be a soldier when he has never assumed the uniform? never done any action which would identify him with that status? As such, one cannot claim Jesus and do no deed to support that claim. But on the other side, deeds without faith is equally useless. A man may dress in the uniform, he may carry the gun, he may fight alongside men in the same garb, he may indeed save lives. But to the books in washington DC, he is non-existant; he is no soldier in the army. One cannot do acts in God's name, and yet never have the faith and expect salvation. For if you do no have the faith, if He does not have you in his book of life, then nothing have done can have any effect.

This goes well with what I see in I Peter. "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." Baptism, the action, cannot save without the faith behind it. But if the faith is there, baptism is one of the best ways to confirm it. Jesus himself preformed this action with John. "Jesus replied [after John claimed he needed to be baptized by Jesus, not vice versa] 'let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented." (Matthew 3:15). Jesus was perfect, sinless, therefore, the act of baptism was not done to save Him. However, by preforming it, He was not only confirming and supporting Johns teachings, but associating Himself with God, in a way, putting on his own pure uniform. Jesus was born the Son of God, born of a virgin. This was his public announcement of that fact.

I believe baptism itself has no power without faith, as the verses above have argued. But it is the act of baptism, or an act like it that confirms the faith. It is a sure way and logical way for one to show their connection, dedication, association, and faith in the One True God, and therefore, is strongly advised as it is and often commanded as it is in the Bible. So when this discussion began with the question of baptism's necessity, there have been interesting results . No, I believe baptism itself as an act is not required, as in there is no special power in the baptism's ceremonial process that can save, only confirm. And yes, as it is one of the few sure-fire and logical ways to prove your faith to God. What soldier would refuse to assume his uniform? What follower would choose not to associate himself with the very person who he has supposedly pledged all to? So now, at the end, if someone where to wish to be saved, what would I tell them: Just as Jesus did: "Believe and be baptized." Have faith and confirm it, act on it. I would assume with honor, God's standard atop the dwelling of my heart to show that indeed the King does rule there and all it encompasses. And if baptism is the way to show God that, as he has requested it, I will do it. But if, as I walk up the steps to that pool to preform this act and the faith behind it, I am suddenly stolen from this world, would not God know my heart? If I am saved by my comitment behind the action, how would the difference of the water touching my head save me? Once I can honestly say, to both myself and to God, that "I am His, and He is mine," that is the power that saves me.

As a follower of Christ, I will unhesitantly do that which He has commanded or even requested of me. If He asks I be baptized, then I'll do it without question. Be it baptism or running around a city seven times, any act of faith that I can do to display my love for Him, to offer up any token to honor the love in the blood he spilt for me, for the sins he threw "farther than the east is from the west," I do willingly and longingly. I would tell all who claim to be washed by His blood to be baptized, for as the man said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). If we have the ability to, why not do it in faith to Him?

Well, I hope that kinda clears up where I stand . Despite my grades in english, I know I still have a lot of trouble putting what I really believe into words (that's why God tells us to act so we can't be misunderstood ). Once again, m273p15c, I thank you so much for how you have helped me in my walk with Christ. I hope this is not the only time we will walk together.

Forever listening

[m273p15c]

It is good to hear from you again. You have very thoughtful and kind responses, which I greatly appreciate.

I agree with one of your main points: Baptism without faith is useless! No amount of "want-to" (will-power) or "good deeds" can merit one's salvation (John 1:12-13; 6:28-29). We are in desperate need of God's grace and mercy, upon which we rely through faith. Without such faith, we are doomed (Hebrews 11:6).

You have referenced I Peter 3:21, which I think is a very powerful passage in answering your original question; however, I am somewhat concerned by your understanding of it. Maybe I have misunderstood you, but do you believe that this verse teaches that baptism is not a requirement for our salvation? We need to examine the parts you underlined more closely. But, whatever they mean, they cannot negate the first part of the verse:

There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter 3:21 - NKJ)

Of all the possible interpretations of Peter's parenthetical comment on how baptism saves us, we cannot adopt an interpretation that dismisses the fact that "baptism now saves you". Does your interpretation of the middle part contradict the first part? Do you believe that baptism does not save us?

To explain Peter's parenthetical statement regarding the method of baptism's salvation, you should know there is some debate among commentators, which is evidenced by the variety in translations. There are several Bible versions, which contain translations similar to the NKJ, which you and I have been referencing: KJV, NLT, and WEB (RWB). However, others translate it differently, which offers a completely different interpretation:

And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter 3:21 - NAS)

Translations that offer a version similar to this are: ESV, NAB, NAU, NRS, and RSV. The ASV and ERV uses the word "interrogation", while Young's literal translation (YLT) uses "question", both of which could support a similar interpretation. This seems a better translation given the lexicons and dictionaries, like Strong's, which you referenced previously:

eperotema {ep-er-o'-tay-mah}
Meaning: 1) an enquiry, a question 2) a demand 3) earnestly seeking 3a) craving, an intense desire
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1906

How can we question, demand, earnestly seek, crave, or intensely desire a good conscience from God, if we already have it?

For completeness, a few others use the word, "pledge", which Lenski supports: NIV, CSB, and NET.

The variety reflects the difficulty of interpreting the Greek, but it may also reflect the dangerous impact of the otherwise clear interpretation upon one's cherished beliefs.

Here's the question that has been debated: Is baptism a response that arises from one's already good conscience (i.e., saved before baptism), or is baptism a form of seeking a good conscience from God (i.e, saved at baptism)? Now we could discuss the Greek in detail, but I think it unnecessary. Consider our earlier "common-sense" question: Can we pick an interpretation for the ambiguous second half of a verse that contradicts a clear first half of the verse? How can we interpret the last part to mean that we are saved before baptism, if immediately prior Peter clearly states that baptism saves us?!

How does this harmonize with previous answers? Peter clearly states that baptism saves us. That is a staggering point, so he elaborates: Baptism's power does not arise from the ceremonial washing, but it arises from one's manifested desire for salvation, which of course, only has power through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. This passage from Hebrews seems to explain a similar point:

For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14)

Notice how the sprinkling of animal blood from OT sacrifices put away the filth of the flesh, but the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience! Is this not the point being made in I Peter 3:21? It would be a comparable mistake to associate the power of the Jesus' blood to outward cleansing, just as it would be to associate the power of baptism with outward cleansing. ... The only question that remains is this, "When do we come in contact with Christ's blood?". Recalling previous passages:

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)

Paul says that we come in contact with His death at baptism. We are buried with Christ in baptism; therefore, we come in contact with His blood at baptism. Again, after baptism we are spiritually raised to walk a new life. How is that possible, if we were already walking a new life before baptism? What is being put to death at baptism, if we were saved beforehand?

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses ... (Colossians 2:11-13)

Notice Paul's comparison between baptism and "spiritual" circumcision. He says that this spiritual procedure is performed by Christ. Before this procedure, we are "dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh". However, after baptism (spiritual circumcision), we are "made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses". Again, according to Scripture, at what point are our sins forgiven and are we made alive?

Finally, if we are still inclined to dismiss baptism as the point at which sins are forgiven, we still have to wrestle with these passages:

'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' (Acts 22:16)

Paul clearly already believed in Jesus. He had demonstrated his faith through constant prayer and fasting for 3 days! Yet, his sins remained, and baptism was proscribed as the means to wash his sins away. Also, notice how baptism is linked with "calling on the name of the Lord". Do you think this call upon the Lord could be "an appeal for a good conscience from God" (I Peter 3:21)? Remember, "calling upon the Lord" follows belief (Romans 10:14), so it cannot be equated with faith. It is something that comes after faith, like baptism! ...

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:37-38)

The interesting thing about this verse is that the Greek for "for the remission of sins" is identical to that used by Jesus:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

Was Jesus blood required for us to be forgiven, or did He die because we had already been forgiven? Remember, the original language is identical to Acts 2:38.

In closing, you mentioned that there was no ceremonial power in baptism to save. I agree, because I believe that is the point of I Peter 3:21. Baptism is not magic. It's power comes from God who mercifully bestows forgiveness based on Jesus' sacrifice at the point of our baptism. God chooses the time and place to forgive our sins and recognize us as His children. Just because God sets a requirement, we should not think the requirement has the power. It does not. God holds the power. ... For an alternative comparison, consider faith. What is so special about faith? There is no power in faith. God does not have to respect faith, but He does. What about repentance? Is there any power to bestow salvation in repentance? Again, no. The power comes from God, Who respects our repentances and grants another chance. What about confession? You previously mentioned a prayer that you taught sinners to offer in conversion? Did you believe there was power in that prayer? No. The power always resided in God. Could it be that baptism is occasionally eyed prejudicially, in a way that is inconsistent with how we view the other requirements for salvation?

About baptism being associated with "dyeing", I am unaware of any evidence that associates baptism with a "marking". The Greek word means immersion. The reference you provided shows that quite well (Strong's). If you look closely at the definition, you will see that bapto is associated with dying, not baptizo. Furthermore, your reference says not to confuse the two: They are different.

There is a very rich theology (faith-only) that has been constructed over many years that dismisses baptism as being generally required for our salvation. It sounds very consistent, and it has some support from Scripture, although the verses may be taken out of context. Please be very careful here. In this alternate theology, baptism is just an outward sign of one's pre-existing salvation. It serves to mark those who are already saved. In other words, according to this doctrine, people are saved before baptism. In churches that support this theology, baptisms are conducted once a month or so, instead of immediately upon one's desire to repent and be converted - because there is no urgency. In such cases, the only judgment feared is that of man. However, that is contrary to the above passages and the very spirit of Christianity (Matthew 6:1-6; 10:28). Are you accepting this view?

Oh, you had another point: What if you were "stolen away" on your way up the stairs to the baptistery? As an answer, please consider this question, "What if you died on your way to hear preaching, where you would have believed and been saved?" Does that mean belief is unnecessary? For any requirement, we can imagine an emotional, hypothetical situation that challenges judgment against the imaginary person, thereby encouraging dismissal of the requirement. However, the first mistake in these questions is volunteering to stand in God's shoes! He is the Judge. We are the preachers and teachers. Our job is to proclaim what He has said. He will sort out the rest. ... Could there be exceptions? Sure, that is His prerogative. However, it would be very presumptuous on our part if we decided to guess at His judgments and establish a new plan based on our guesses, especially if our guesses contradicted His clearly revealed will. In the country, we call this, "whittling on God's end of the stick". :-) Don't let someone trick you into doing this.

Well, I have been somewhat more "confrontational" this time, but it is only because I see you becoming more comfortable and settled. Please recall from Acts 19:1-6, that those who were baptized for the wrong reason had to be baptized again. Their first baptism was not sufficient! Their first baptism used the right medium (water). Their first baptism focused on the right person (Jesus), but yet the first was still ultimately unprofitable. They had to be baptized again! Paul only bestowed the Holy Spirit after they were baptized correctly. How effective will baptism be for you, if you do it for the wrong reason? What if you are not baptized "for the remission of sins", as were those ancient saints (Acts 2:37-38)? God ultimately makes that decision, but are you willing to make any presumptions in the meantime?

Please understand I am questioning you only because I care for you, and I am concerned. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

BTW, although this has been more lengthy, it is still brief in some ways. Would you be open to studying with someone in person, who might could communicate with you more personally and immediately? Although I think we are discussing the Bible quite well via email, I can't help but wonder if it would be more effective for you talk with someone face to face. If you tell me your city, I can check if I have a friend in your vicinity. If I know someone close to you, and if you are willing, I would simply forward you the contact info and leave it up to you to meet them over coffee or something. You would be in complete control.

May God help us to have a supreme love of the truth,

m273p15c