BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION

Gary McDade

The way Guy N. Woods put it in the Woods-Nunnery Debate of 1946 made it clear, “The sinner is not saved from past or alien sins today until he has been baptized in water” (p. 5). And, another clarionly clear statement from the debate on the subject is “You must be *in Christ* to be a child of God by faith. You can get into Christ only by being baptized. Hence, baptism is essential to the salvation of the alien sinner” (p. 7). It takes expert help to elude the force of plainly stated New Testament passages to the contrary. The following sustain this point: Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Baptism precedes salvation. John 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Baptism—being born of water—precedes entering the kingdom of God, the realm of salvation (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:13-14; Heb. 12:28). Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Baptism precedes remission of sins. Acts 22:16, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Baptism precedes having sins washed away.

Romans 6:3-8, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” Baptism precedes newness of life, that is, the destruction of the old man of sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Baptism precedes sanctification and justification. Galatians 3:26-27, “ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Baptism precedes entering into Christ. Colossians 2:12, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Baptism precedes forgiveness of all trespasses.

 Titus 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Baptism precedes salvation. Hebrews 10:22, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Baptism precedes full assurance of faith. 1 Peter 3:21, “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 precedes salvation. And, Revelation 1:5, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” Baptism precedes washing from sins. Since, therefore, baptism precedes salvation, precedes entering the kingdom of God—the realm of salvation, precedes remission of sins, precedes having sins washed away, precedes newness of life, precedes sanctification and justification, precedes entering into Christ, precedes forgiveness of all trespasses, precedes salvation (to emphasize a second time), precedes full assurance of faith, precedes salvation (a notable triumvirate), precedes washing from sins, then the incontrovertible conclusion is “baptism is essential to salvation.”

Mark 16:16, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21 are the notable triumvirate from among the dozen passages listed and are generally considered to be clearest and most direct proof that “baptism is essential to salvation.” Why were they and the many others ever challenged to be otherwise? One lasting source that deprives the reasoning of millions even today from seeing and believing the force of these succinctly stated truths on the connection of baptism to salvation is *The Institutes of the Christian Religion* (1536) written by John Calvin, the Swiss reformer. His view of predestination where people are chosen to eternal salvation based only on the sovereign will of God and others are not among those chosen for the same reason made baptism in his mind a work of human merit and, therefore, not essential to salvation. Baptism is never described as a work of human merit in the New Testament, and while Calvin taught salvation is by “faith only,” faith itself is described in the New Testament as “the work of God” (John 6:29)! Millions continue to espouse Calvin’s doctrine that baptism is not essential to salvation but is only a visible sign of forgiveness of sins or only a representation of forgiveness of sins received by faith alone. Over the years the slogan, “Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace” has evolved from Calvin’s doctrine on the subject. (If interested see: Book IV, Chapter 15, Sections 1 and 5 for Calvin’s discussion on the topic).

Today Baptist preachers boast, “Baptism is a command to be obeyed but it is not essential to salvation.” The failure here is to understand that Jesus Christ has all authority to command (Matthew 28:18) and refusal to comply is equivalent to rebellion against Christ which voids the hope of eternal salvation for the one so brazen (John 12:48-49; Heb. 5:8-9; Rev. 22:14). For an example, at the Chattanooga Area Leadership Prayer Breakfast in 2023, Todd Hopkins, founder and CEO of Office Pride Commercial Cleaning Services, said to the 2,000 in attendance (audio is still available on their website), “If you are baptized to be saved, you go to hell soaking wet!” After much discussion with the organizers and Mr. Hopkins himself about this blasphemy, Mr. Hopkins was compelled to provide an addendum which posed as an explanation—not a retraction—and restated his belief on the subject of baptism which conformed more to the position articulated by John Calvin. The organizers and Mr. Hopkins were referred to Mark 16:16 many times to answer their defense of their nationally known speaker, yet they adamantly refused to acknowledge the statement from the Son of God that baptism is essential to salvation. Also, an integral part of Calvinism is the propagation of a contradiction—baptism a command/disobedience to the command inconsequential. For example, the late Adrian Rogers, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention (1979-1980, 1986-1988) and architect of the Baptist Faith and Message (2005), affirmed that teaching baptism is essential to salvation was proof of false teaching (lwf.org/sermons/audio/how-to-spot-a-counterfeit-1829; 16 minute mark). In doing so he contradicted what the Savior taught in Mark 16:16. The apostle John focused attention on the truth when he wrote by inspiration of God, “No lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21).

Guy N. Woods defended the proposition, “The Bible teaches that water baptism is essential to the salvation of thealien sinner,” at the Cedar Hill Baptist Church near Parsons, Tennessee in 1946, and presented lines of reasoning before his opponent, A.U. Nunnery who was representing the Missionary Baptist Church in Parsons, that are deserving of review and restatement to the church today. Three of the arguments emerge from Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; and 1 Peter 3:21. Briefly, here is what brother Woods said on Mark 16:16:

*“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned”* (Mark 16:16). This is a complex, declarative sentence. Its principal statement is, “He shall be saved.” Who shall be saved? If this were all; if the principal statement were not modified by a limiting clause, universal salvation would be here affirmed. The principal statement is modified by a limiting or restrictive clause. *He shall be saved!* Who shall be saved? He *that believeth and is baptized* shall be saved. Lord, did you say, “He that believeth shall be saved?” No. Did you say, “He that is baptized shall be saved?” No. What then? HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED!” Faith and baptism, in this passage, are joined by the coordinating conjunction, *and.* Coordinate conjunctions join or unite elements of equal rank. Faith and baptism are thus joined in this sentence to obtain the same result—salvation. He that believeth, item number 1, and is baptized, item number 2, shall be saved, item number 3. *“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved”* (p. 33).

The truth was made as plain as 1, 2, 3. Next, brother Woods made it as precise as a mathematical equation. He said,

Jesus put it like this: Belief plus baptism equals salvation.

Examine, please this simple equation:

2 plus 2 equals 4

Belief plus baptism equals salvation 2 minus 2 equals 0.

Therefore, belief *minus* baptism equals nothing! Now, even Mr. Nunnery can see that, I know. He will likely say that the Lord did not say, “. . . he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned.” If baptism is a condition of salvation; why did not the Lord make its non-acceptance, in this passage, a condition of damnation? Unbelief is the one condition of damnation. An unbeliever does not have to do additional acts of disobedience in order to be damned. “He that believeth not is condemned already” (John 3:18). Mark 16:16, sets forth two conditions of salvation, faith and baptism. It mentions one condition of damnation, unbelief (p. 34).

Next, on Acts 2:38 brother Woods contrasted from the unique perspective of the design or end to be obtained and the duty associated with Peter’s answer to the Jews assembled on Pentecost. He said,

Before my time is up in this speech, I wish to introduce Acts 2:38: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Two things are here commanded: (1) Repent; (2) be baptized. The object that follows is, remission of sins. He did not say, Repent for the remission of sins; neither did he say, Be baptized for remission of sins. He did say, Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. There has been much controversy over the significance of the phrase, “for the remission of sins.” Let us, for the moment, ignore this portion of it, and examine Peter’s statement simply as a duty expressed without regard to the purpose or end obtained: MEN AND BRETHREN, WHAT SHALL WE DO? REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. Here, it is clear that as a duty expressed in response to their query, Men and brethren what shall we do, Peter commanded repentance and baptism. If, however, we examine it in the light of the design or end to be obtained, we have the question thus: MEN AND BRETHREN WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS? Peter so understood the significance of their question, for he immediately answered: “Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins, indicating that he understood them to be inquiring what to do to obtain such remission. To illustrate what is here said, draw a line through the controverted statement, “for remission of sins” thus: “Repent and be baptized . . .,” thus for the time ignoring the design or end. Considered as a duty, Peter commands two things (1) repentance; (2) baptism. Now, look at it from the view of end or aim sought: “Men and brethren what shall we do? . . . for the remission of sins.” Whether therefore Peter’s answer is considered as a duty expressed, or for the end or aim of remission of sins; they understood clearly that two things were essential thereto: Repentance and baptism (pp. 55-56).

Attention to the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 compared to Matthew 26:28 was also a part of the argument brother Woods advanced. To those who inquired what to do, Peter said, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” The phrase, “for the remission of sins” sets for the object or end to be obtained. In Matt. 26:28, we have a parallel expression: “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” This asserts that Christ’s blood was shed *for the remission of sins.* This phrase is identical, both in Greek and in English, with that of Acts 2:38. “For remission of sins,” in this passage, indicates the end or design of the shedding of Christ’s blood. To what end was Christ’s blood shed? For remission of sins. Why did Peter command the Pentecostians to repent and be baptized for? For the remission of sins! If, in Acts 2:38, Peter commanded baptism *because of* remission, Christ’s blood was shed because our sins were already remitted. All know that Christ died in order that we might have remission. The phrase bears this significance also in Acts 2:38.

Thus, repentance and baptism are set forth in this passage as conditions leading to remission of sins. These arguments will stand, friends, and my opponent will not answer them. In the first place he can’t; and in the second place he has no intention of even trying; and that is the reason he spends his time talking to his moderator, or doing something else.

Baptism is “for” the remission of sins. You may search the Book the rest of your days, and you will never find baptism said to be “for” anything except “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And so my proposition stands proven. God has never promised man salvation under the present dispensation short of baptism. There is not a case in the Book this side of Pentecost where any man ever rejoiced because his sins were forgiven until he had been baptized. When Mr. Nunnery tells you that you may expect salvation short of baptism, he deceives you. He leads you to believe that you can be saved short of obedience to the gospel, and you can’t be. You had better do what the Bible says, rather than what Mr. Nunnery says (pp. 61-63).

Then 1 Peter 3:21 was the foundation for a third argument offered by brother Woods.

“A like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us. Note, friends, the word now in this passage. Baptism doth also NOW save us. It’s not a future salvation that’s under consideration here; it’s a salvation that is present. Mr. Nunnery quoted it like this: “Baptism saves us NOW.” Well, that puts the emphasis on the present. What is it that baptism saves us from NOW? You tell us, Mr. Nunnery. From what does baptism save us now? This debate will end, friends, and he won’t answer that question, because he can’t. He has had somewhat to say about baptism being a figure of salvation. He says it is like it was in the flood. Noah preached 120 years, Mr. Nunnery says, before the flood came, and he insists that he was saved all of this period. It is too bad that Noah, or his family did not know this. They thought they were saved by the flood. Peter thought so, too, because he says that eight souls of them were saved by water! Strange that they did not know that they were already saved, before and without the waters of the flood. As a matter of fact, I am glad that they did not; because if they had subscribed to the position of Mr. Nunnery in this debate, they would have all drowned! Why, they would have said, what is the use of going through the waters of the flood if we are already saved? No, they did not think they were saved, and Peter did not either. Mr. Nunnery stands alone in his contention.

Our salvation by water today is an antitype of the salvation of Noah. The antediluvian world represents the world of sin today. The waters of the flood typifies baptism. As the flood separated Noah and his family from the world of sin so baptism separates us from sin today. Note, please, Peter’s comparison: “. . . God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto 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” (1 Pet. 3:21). Mr. Nunnery’s illustration of the dollar bill and picture has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. [Mr. Nunnery presented a picture of a dollar bill and held up an actual dollar bill, and asked if the picture was preferred over the money]. Please, Mr. Nunnery, tell us FROM WHAT DOES BAPTISM NOW SAVE??? (pp. 30-31).

I made an extended argument this morning on Mark 16:15, 16 which remains unanswered. Acts 2:38 was also carefully analyzed, and offered in support of my proposition, which, too, is unanswered. Mr. Nunnery merely referred to these passages in the briefest fashion, and then passed them. He has no intention of meeting these arguments. Friends, the gentleman can’t meet them. There is not a Baptist preacher on earth that can meet the simple arguments we offer on Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38, and 1 Peter 3:21. *They just can’t do it.* They labor desperately; they put forth a strong effort and say a little about this and that and the other. They lay a smoke screen by asking a lot of questions, but they simply can't meet the issue. It is not that they’re weak. It is not that they do not possess intelligence and ability. It’s just that they're on the wrong side of this issue!

Before I close, note this argument given early in the discussion today: “Repent and turn again that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). *What is the turning act?* It is not belief: Acts 11:21: “A Great number believed and turned to the Lord.” Turning follows belief. It is not repentance: Acts 28:20: Paul preached that men “should repent and turn to God.” Turning follows repentance. Hence, we turn, not before faith; but after, not before repentance but after. The turning act is something following both faith and repentance. What is it? “Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). “Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). *Repent,* in Acts 2, is equal to *repent* in Acts 3. *Sins blotted out in Acts* 3, is the same as *remission of sins in Acts 2.* Therefore, the turning of Acts 3, is the baptism of Acts 2. *The sinner turns to God in baptism!* (p. 85).