Is Baptism Essential for Salvation? - Program 4

Program 4: Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? What is Faith?

Jones: Faith includes what God said to do to bring about salvation.

Ankerberg: That’s obedience!

Jones: Okay, obedience. There’s no such thing as a non-obedient faith that brings about salvation.

Ankerberg: I would grant that, but I’m trying to understand how you are getting away from just defining faith as obedience, period!

Jones: Okay, define obedience.

Ankerberg: Maybe that’s just your definition. I just want to know if that’s what you’re saying.

Kingdon: Why do you just go to Hebrews 11? Why not take other passages? “For him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” [Rom. 4:4-5] Now when was Abraham justified?

Jones: Okay. You mean because he was a man of faith, Abraham expressed his faith by sojourning and doing what God said.

Kingdon: No; when was he justified?

Jones: Are you talking about offering Isaac?

Kingdon: No, he wasn’t [justified when he offered Isaac]. When was he justified?

Allen: I’ll be delighted to answer. What David has in mind is Genesis 15:6 which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.” And David said let’s stay out of Hebrews 11.

Kingdon: No, I didn’t say that.

Allen: Well, I thought…….

Kingdon: No. No. I said take other passages as well.

Allen: Alright. We’re delighted to take other passages.

Kingdon: Right. So am I.

Allen: Just happy.

Ankerberg: But the question again, when was Abraham justified?

Allen: Let me finish the answer. At Hebrews 11:8 it shows that by faith when he was called to go out into a country which afterward he should receive as an inheritance, he obeyed and he did it by faith. Now for many years Abraham had been serving God faithfully and loyally. He was a saved man before the Genesis 15:6 statement was made, which says , “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.” Now, David quoted Romans 4:4-5 awhile ago about how Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness, and it was not by works. See, we grant that totally and completely. He didn’t earn it; he didn’t merit it; he didn’t deserve it. But Abraham had been obedient to God for many years, according to Hebrews 11:8 before the Genesis 15:6 event occurred. Now, he was not justified by works. These gentlemen believe that we think baptism is a work. I beg your pardon. They understand that baptism is a work of righteousness and therefore if it’s in the scheme of redemption, in the plan of salvation, you’re trying to earn it.

Ankerberg: Let me ask, Do you believe that they believe that it’s a work of righteousness?

Allen: No, I corrected that.

Ankerberg: I wasn’t so sure that they were saying that it’s a work of righteousness. I think the difference is, is the application made at baptism or at what is called faith? And we’re trying to define what is faith, and I think the ball is over in your court.

Kingdon: I mean, the point is though, why does the New Testament consistently – particularly Paul and in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 – quote Genesis 15:6 to prove the point that Abraham was justified apart from works?

Ankerberg: What are you driving at, David?

Kingdon: Well, I’m trying to get at the point that it was reckoned to him for righteousness, not on the basis of a work that he did; not on the basis of circumcision, which is not mentioned until Genesis 17; not on the basis of any rite that he went through, and he’s held up as the great exemplar of faith to New Testament believers.

Ankerberg: Alright. Let’s have some questions. Who’s got a question, here?

Audience: Yes. We’ve been talking a lot about you can have the faith and then at what point in time is salvation given after faith or at that time. I want the panelists to respond to Acts 22:16 where Saul of Tarsus had been confronted with Christ on the Damascus Road and then three days later was told to “get up and be baptized, and wash his sins away calling on the name of the Lord.”

Ankerberg: Dr. Bjornstad, do you want to start us?

Bjornstad: The passage as I would see it from the original language, which I think makes it much clearer, would indicate the fact that Paul is told to arise and then to be baptized and then kai – and – wash away your sins. And the reference “calling on his name” is an instrumental case, so that the “calling on His name” is what washes away your sins, not baptism which is separated from it by “and”.

Ankerberg: Jerry?

Jones: I’m glad he brought the language in. “Arise” is an aorist participle which is past tense in Greek. “Be baptized” is the aorist middle imperative. “Wash away” is an aorist middle imperative. And “call upon the name of the Lord” is an aorist middle participle. Consequently, all of them are going to take place at the same time. All of them take place at the same time because of the tense of the language. And again you have “baptism” and “washing away of sins” connected in the same verse and the calling upon the name of the Lord is apparently the way Ananias says the way you do it.

Ankerberg: James?

Bjornstad: My response to that very quickly would be that while the language gives the idea that it is simultaneous in occurrence, the phrase, “calling upon his name,” is that which is associated with “washing away your sins.” It is so as it follows from the English language in “washing away your sins,” and “calling on his name”; it is so from the Greek language. That’s the great probability of it.

Ankerberg: James?

Allen: The passage says to “Arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The Scripture teaches that one through faith and repentance in being baptized is calling on the Lord’s name. Acts 2:21, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” and yet Acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” The way they called on the name of the Lord on Pentecost Day was by repentance and baptism, at which times their sins were remitted. A sinner in repenting of sins and in being immersed is offering prayer to God to have mercy on his soul. And 1 Peter 3:21, which deals with water baptism, in some translations says that it is the seeking after, it is the appeal, it is the prayer, it is the craving of a good conscience before God.

Ankerberg: Let’s take 1 Peter 3:21.

Kingdon: That’s in some translations. If you look in Arndt and Gingrich you’ll find that....

Ankerberg: What is Arndt and Gingrich?

Kingdon: It’s the standard Greek lexicon. I think we’d agree on that.

Allen: Yes.

Kingdon: He gives one of the possible meanings as “a pledge proceeding from a good conscience.” Not a question, but a pledge proceeding from a good conscience. Now this is admittedly a difficult verse, but that’s all the more reason for not putting the great weight upon it that is sometimes put because of the difficulty of the Greek.

Allen: I want to respond by saying that it is difficult to know how to translate this particular word whether it should be “pledge” as in the NIV or whether it should be “appeal” as it is in the RSV. I’ll grant that. But either way you take it, 1 Peter 3:21 says, “After a likeness or after the anti-type of Noah’s salvation, baptism doth also now save us.” And it’s not the putting away of the mere physical stains from the skin, but it is the appeal to God or it is the pledge to God. And if you want to take it as pledge, one has the good conscience and then he does it, but it’s that by which he’s saved. If you want to take it the other way it’s the “appeal,” then it is that by which he is saved and then he is also asking God for a good conscience.

Ankerberg: David?

Kingdon: Is the good conscience then after the baptism or prior to it?

Allen: Now, you talked about it being a hard text, and now then, let’s just stay with the hard text. I’m granting that the good conscience may be prior to the baptism of 1 Peter 3:21, but the salvation isn’t. The salvation comes, we are saved in baptism, according to 1 Peter 3:21.

Kingdon: How do we get a good conscience?

Allen: Well, when an individual decides he is going to repent of his sins, he’s going to quit rebelling against God. But the salvation of 1 Peter 3:21 takes place in water baptism just like Noah and his family were saved from that old world by water; 1 Peter 3:20, after a likeness, the anti-type, the figure of that, when we are baptized in water, we are saved.

Bjornstad: Did I hear you say that Noah was saved by the water?

Allen: That’s what it says.

Bjornstad: Or by the ark?

Allen: Well, the Bible says both. Would you like me to read? It says, “When once....

Kingdon: Just with the context that it says here.

Allen: Alright, 1 Peter 3:20: “When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was preparing wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” They were saved in the ark and by the water.

Bjornstad: No. No. “Through” the water.

Kingdon: It doesn’t say “by,” it says “through” in the Greek.

Allen: Okay, “through.” I’ll take it that way.

Bjornstad: Well, that’s the ark that went “through” the water.

Kingdon: Well, it says “through the water” because he was in the ark!

Allen: Well, I’ll take it both ways.

Ankerberg: Before, we get carried away though, how can we say that it was “through” the water when everyone in the water drowned?

Allen: Alright, fine. If you want to take that point of view, everyone who went into the water drowned, then you carry that figure or that type over to the New Testament, and anyone who is baptized is damned.

Ankerberg: Why would you take that view?

Allen: Well, if you are arguing that the salvation in 1 Peter 3:21 came by staying out of the water, then obviously anyone who went into the water died. Then if you want to carry the type over, the only ones who would be saved would be those who stay out of the water and those who get into the water would be those who are damned.

Ankerberg: But that’s a problem for your position.

Kingdon: But the problem’s on your side.

Allen: There’s no problem with me, no problem at all; because the salvation under consideration in 1 Peter 3:20-21 does not have to do with his relationship to God, it has to do with the fact that he was saved from that old world of corruption. And if you will notice, I’ll just read the language: “which sometimes were disobedient when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was preparing wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” In some sense, water saved Noah’s family. That’s what is said in 1 Peter 3:20, and in verse 21 baptism is a figure of Noah’s salvation. It is the anti-type, it is the likeness. And as water was the dividing line between Noah and that old corrupt sinful world, so water baptism is the dividing line between our salvation in Christ and outside.

Ankerberg: Let’s get a response on that.

Kingdon: One thing. Is there contact in believer’s baptism of water with the body? There obviously is, right?

Allen: The body, David? I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean.

Kingdon: Well, when I was baptized, the water of the baptistery came into contact with my body.

Allen: Yes.

Kingdon: Did any water come into contact with Noah’s body?

Allen: No.

Kingdon: Right. So we’ve got to establish what the relationship is between the type and the anti-type, which is the point at issue. Have we not?

Allen: If it hadn’t been for the water, the ark wouldn’t have floated.

Kingdon: Sure. So what does that prove?

Allen: It proves that water became the element that separated from the destruction that was in the world with the salvation that was in the ark. If it hadn’t been for the water, he would have died.

Bjornstad: If I can make one point that you are getting into, what I hear both of you doing is really building a theology on little clichés and stories that you add to the text. Because if I read that text straight, it says this: “Who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah during the construction of the ark in which [referring to the ark] a few, that is, eight persons were brought safely through the water.” And then that is what becomes the type and the anti-type. Now you can tell me all the stories about, “Well, if it’s baptism then everybody that’s baptized will die.” You can’t push types to their nth degree because types always break down. Stories are nice, but the literal statement refers to the ark as that which brought them to safety, through the water, not the water itself.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’ve got a solid question here. I’d like to end with a verse that hasn’t even come up but it’s been quoted a couple of times, and that’s in Mark 16:16: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

Allen: May I have that one?

Ankerberg: Alright, would you start with that?

Allen: Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” These men are better Greek scholars than I am, but both “believe” and “baptism” in Mark 16:16 are aorist participles, and “shall be saved” is a future verb. And participles take their time from the time of the leading verb. And so if it’s aorist participles they must be translated as having occurred before the time of the leading verb. The new ASV says “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” There is simply no way to get the salvation of Mark 16:16 in between belief and baptism. Belief plus baptism equals salvation. “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” And that’s the authority of Jesus.

Ankerberg: Can we have a response now to that?

Bjornstad: Well, the point that needs to be made from it to begin with is that from a logician’s viewpoint, if you look at a sentence like that, any time that you have two participles as he indicates, one which is active, the first one, the second which is passive, they are aorist, the fact of the matter is that when you have two of them together in a construct like that with a single result, you get four different possibilities. With the sentence alone the way that it’s stated, both of them could be necessary to get that result, or the first one could and the second one is not, or the second one could and the first one is not, or neither of them would be necessary for the result logically. What you need is more information, and that’s when you come to the next statement which clarifies the point.

Ankerberg: Let me explain that. If I was to use those same words and use an illustration, “Whoever walks up a path and has dust fall on him shall become king of the mountain.” You have two verbs with a conclusion. Now, the question is, “Which of those two verbs are necessary to either get to the top or to become king of the mountain. It could be the first, it could be the second, or it could be both. Now, it would seem, if you take it away from the spiritual context at that point, if you simply say, “He that walks up the path and is covered with dust shall reach the top of the hill,” it would seem like the first is important. But if it was to say in the next line, “Whoever is covered by dust shall reach the top of the hill or whoever is not covered by dust will not reach the top of the hill,” then you would realize which of those two verbs is the important one. I think that’s what Dr. Bjornstad is saying here.

Bjornstad: Let me construct it. Your grammar is right in terms of saying that, “He who has run to the top,” which would be your participle and it is active, and “is covered or has been covered,” because it would be aorist, “has been covered with dust,” and that is passive, “will be king of the mountain.” The question is, what of that is needed? Now, what you need is more information. If the next statement says “the one who does not run to the top will not be king,” then you know it’s necessary to run to the top. If the next statement says, “If the one who is covered with dust,” is the one who will be king of the mountain, you know that’s the important statement. If the next statement says, “The one that does not run to the top, the one that has not been covered with dust,” then you know both of them would be important.

What I’m saying in a passage like this is, what is important in that proposition that is given in verse 16a, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved,” is clarified by the second point, but “he who has disbelieved” and there you have the negative particle “a” in front of it which is the opposite of believing, “shall be condemned.” So the necessary element for salvation or condemnation is belief or non-belief.

Jones: Okay, let me jump in here. Let me go on to the end of it. You see, the reason why “disbelieved” is underlined here is because baptism has no meaning without belief, because Jesus says, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Now you diagram that sentence and you get salvation between belief and baptism for me.

Bjornstad: If I diagram that sentence?

Jones: Diagram it.

Kingdon: Can’t do it.

Bjornstad: Baptism becomes incidental, because the second part of it clearly indicates that negative aspect. The only thing that counts on condemnation or justification is the fact that you believe or not believe it.

Allen: If I said, “He that eateth his food and has been digested shall live, but he that eateth not his food shall die,” I wouldn’t have to say, “He that eats not and digests not.” Why? Because you can’t digest something you haven’t eaten, but you cannot be baptized unless you believe.

Ankerberg: Okay. Let’s wrap it up on this question, if we can. Okay? Would you take the illustration and put that in the proper form?

Bjornstad: Well, he says, “He who has eaten his food and has been digested will live,” but the point is that there are other ways to live – intravenous feeding, you would not exactly have to eat or whatever. So what you need is more information to tell you whether there is something else or whether it is one of those or both of those needed. Whether it’s the hill illustration or the one that I used before, it’s exactly the same thing. It brings you back to verse 16b. The essential part is “belief “or “not believing,” And that depends, and that of course indicates, whether it’s condemnation or righteousness before God. Baptism is not part of it.

Allen: May I respond?

Ankerberg: Alright. One last response there.

Allen: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” I would urge anyone watching this program to just jot down Mark 16:16 and take it to an English teacher and have the English teacher diagram and it and conclude in light of good grammar that one receives the salvation before and without being baptized. Furthermore, “he that believeth not shall be damned,” of course, we’re in total agreement with what you say on unbelief. If an individual does not believe, he cannot be baptized. It takes only one condition to damn: unbelief. It takes two to save: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Ankerberg: But wouldn’t you say, Jim, that if you took it and diagrammed it exactly the way we said before that you have already assumed that from some other place?

Allen: No sir. I’ll take the grammar of Mark 16:16 to that.

Ankerberg: Well gentlemen, let’s close on that question tonight, and again I thank you all for your participation in the discussion.

John Ankerberg – Concluding Remarks

Dr. Jerry Jones – Response to John Ankerberg’s Closing Remarks