The doctrine that baptism is required for salvation is referred to as Baptismal Regeneration. Confusion about that particular belief led to my first Biblical crisis and my first detailed Bible study. It was an important step, not only to settling my personal beliefs but in learning principals of Bible study that have helped me to stay true to the Scriptures.
Upfront, we should acknowledge that there are several King James Bible verses, that if taken by themselves, might lead a person to believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation. For that reason, I do not consider those who believe in Baptismal Regeneration to be heretics or of those who add to or take away from the Bible (Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.).
Having said that, I believe they are wrong. While they sincerely believe they are standing on the Word of God, they are “reading into the Scriptures what they believe" instead of “reading from the Scriptures what they say.”
I also realize that if God had not allowed some verses to be worded the way He did, these people would likely not believe this doctrine. And that leads me to another question. “Why did God allow the confusion at all?” He could have made it very clear whether baptism is part of salvation or not. The answer to the last question seems to be that sometimes God must not be as concerned that we be correct as He is that we be Christlike. May God help us to be both.
Most who hold to Baptismal Regeneration do so due to these verses:
He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned.
Mark 16:16
I. There are two statements here, and both are true.
A. If a person believes and is baptized, they are saved.
1. Who can argue with that? It is a true statement. If a person does both, he is saved; but what if he does only one of the two things mentioned? Will he be saved or lost? And if only one of these things is required for salvation, which one is it? The second half of the verse will answer that question.
2. Of course the Church of Christ (Campbellites as they once were called) want to emphasize that baptism is mentioned alongside of believing. They do not use the last portion of the verse to help them understand the first. By ignoring the remainder of the verse, they take the first half of the verse out of its context and open themselves to error.
3. The question is, "Did Jesus mean for both the instructions (faith and baptism) to be necessary to salvation?" They say "yes." I believe "no." When I give an invitation and say, "If you want to be saved, come to the altar and accept Christ," do I mean that you can only be saved if you come to the altar? No, but someone could interpret it that way. Is that what Jesus meant? Perhaps; yet, this is just my opinion. We need more than an opinion to settle this. Let’s read the remainder of the verse.
B. If a person does not believe, he shall be damned.
1. Again, this is an entirely true statement. Notice, refusing or omitting baptism is NOT mentioned as being the cause of damnation, just refusing or omitting to believe.
2. If it had been Jesus’ intention to elevate the act of baptism to that of faith, would He not have mentioned it here as well? Had Jesus done so, the question would have been settled.
3. The fact that Jesus listed FAITH ONLY as the cause of damnation indicates to me that FAITH and BAPTISM are NOT mutual acts that lead to salvation. Faith saves, as many other Bible verses will testify. Yet, if a believing person is baptized, he is saved—not because baptism saved him but because faith did.
