Potential issues against Baptism being necessary for salvation

 So, the point I was trying to make last night has to with my understanding of conditional statements and baptism, that is, I believe baptism is a sufficient condition for salvation but not a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. I’ll try and explain what I mean using symbolic logic. The reason for symbolic logic is that language can be somewhat ambiguous but symbols must always mean the same thing. They are inherently unambiguous. So in order to make sense of what is logically implied by certain sentences in the bible, we should translate the sentence into symbols that act as stand ins for the propositions and solve to see if our reasoning is valid.

            So, I believe baptism, and the five conditions for salvation, can be diagrammed as such. If one believes, repents, confesses, is baptized, and perseveres, then one is saved. Using symbols, we can state it as such (B, R, C, Ba, P)®S, where each letter corresponds with a corresponding action or proposition. Now, from what I gathered from you, you wish to say that ~(B, R, C, Ba, P)® ~S, that is, if one doesn’t do any one of the five things, then one is not saved. This statement is actually logically equivalent to this statement via contrapositive[1]: S® (B, R, C, Ba, P), which combined with (B, R, C, Ba, P)®S is equivalent to a bi-conditional statement, that is, (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S[2]. Now, (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S is just the two arrow statements above combined. Another way of saying it is that the set of all saved things is equivalent to the set of all things that have believed, repented, confessed, been baptized, and persevered. So, if you have a Venn diagram of all saved things and a Venn diagram of all B, R, C, Ba, P things the two circles will be exactly identical to each other. Since we are focused on the new covenant, I’ll say post Death, burial and resurrection (although, this is technicality that I’m actually thrilled about accepting). I’ll now show why this statement cannot be true given what is outlined in scripture.

            Point one: Cornelius is saved before baptism. How do I know this? Well, before
Cornelius is baptized, he receives the holy spirit. Now, according to Ephesians 1:13-14[3], this means that Cornelius received a deposit guaranteeing his inheritance in redemption, and that he was sealed for salvation. I don’t know how you can argue against these two passages. The Holy Spirit guarantees our inheritance and seals us. Seals us for what, you might ask. Well, it seems to imply salvation. Thus, for Cornelius the receiving of the holy spirit is evidence of his salvation, which, in his case, occurred before baptism. In fact, it is the reason why Peter baptizes him, and why the council marvels at Peter’s story and say, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18). So, at the very least, the set of all saved things cannot be equivalent to the set of all baptized things. All that is needed is one counterexample, and bam it cannot be true. That is the way logic works. For example, if there was one counter example to the claim that 2+2=4, we couldn’t use the equal sign. Therefore, we cannot use the « sign, which means (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S cannot be true.

Point two: It contradicts God’s word. What I mean by that is that (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S cannot be reconciled with Romans 10:9, 13[4], or even Eph. 1:13-14, which are both conditional statements. Romans 10:9 can be rewritten as B, C®S. Romans 10:13 can rewritten as All Calls®S, where ‘Calls’ stands for everyone who calls on his name; and Ephesians 1:13 can be rewritten as H, B®S, where H stands for hearing and B for believing and S for salvation. However, all of these statements logically contradict (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S. This means that if (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S is true, then those passages must be false. Now, you made the move last night that B, C®S actually means (B, R, C, Ba, P)®S, that is, given the context, baptism and the other conditions ought to be read into these scriptures. Now, (B, R, C, Ba, P)®S doesn’t contradict (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S, since (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S is just the two arrow claims combined. But I don’t see how you can make that claim.

For one, these are not the only scriptures that outline belief and faith as conditions for salvation. As I said last night, there are at least 40 scriptures that imply the claim that (B or F or R)®S, where B stands for believe, F for Faith and R for repentance. Reading the five conditions for salvation, let alone baptism, into each and every one of these statements just doesn’t make sense to me, especially, since some of the statements don’t mention baptism anywhere in the context, such as, Ephesians 1:13-14. You seem to be putting the proverbial cart before the horse, that is, your letting a certain theological framework dictate how you read scripture, rather than letting scripture dictate your theological framework. However, my claim that (B, R, C, Ba, P) ®S can be reconciled with the claims B®S or F®S or R®S. They can both be true at the same time. Therefore, Romans 10:9 doesn’t contradict Acts2:38. Since my view requires fewer hidden assumptions to be read into scripture, my framework makes sense of the material better than yours and doesn’t require as much exegetical gymnastics.

Point three: Nowhere in the bible does it seem to suggest either S® (B, R, C, Ba, P) or ~(B, R, C, Ba, P)® ~S. The thing about logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion must follow. So, if something satisfies the conditions for salvation, that is, belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and perseverance, then salvation must follow. However, it is a fallacy to assume, unless stated otherwise, that if one hasn’t satisfied those conditions, then one isn’t saved. For example, take the statement all White cats are animals. This can be rewritten as WC®A. This statement is a true statement. Now, let’s say you take a black cat. A black cat is certainly not a WC, that is, it doesn’t satisfy the condition WC, but a black cat is an animal. Thus, you cannot infer if something is not a White Cat then it is not an animal. Unless, of course, you prove the set of all animals is equivalent to the set of all Brown Cats, which for baptism is obviously false according to point one[5].

Now there are six passages that seem to imply baptism as a condition for salvation. Romans 6, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16, and Acts 22:16. There are more, but these are probably the best ones. At best, all of these statements can be rewritten as all who are baptized are saved, that is, Ba®S. However, I don’t see how you can interpreted them as all who are saved have been baptized, that is, S® Ba.

Take Titus 3:5[6], for example. It can also be rewritten as “through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, He saved us”, since “through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” is a dependent clause that supports the independent clause of “He saved us” it can be moved around to either the front or the back. But this looks like an if then statement, in that once someone has had this happened to them, i.e., the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, then one is saved. It cannot be worded as: If we are saved, then we have received these things, mainly the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. It can’t be reworded as this because the dependent/supportive clause in this case is “the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”, which supports the claim “he saved us”.  It also can’t be reworded as such because the passage claims a temporal order, in that one precedes the other in continuity. “The washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” precedes salvation, but salvation cannot precede the other one or two things (it remains unclear whether there are actually two conditions here or only one); well it could, but it doesn’t make sense for it to do so. Likewise, the other five passages can be read as a conditional statement, moving from baptism to salvation, but not as a bi-conditional statement.

So, unless you point to a passage that either suggests S® (B, R, C, Ba, P) or ~(B, R, C, Ba, P)® ~S, I remain unpersuaded by your claim that (B, R, C, Ba, P) « S. The only claim you can make at best, is ~B®~S on the basis of Mark 16:16, which means B« S (something I’m willing to accept, despite the problems with Mark 16:16). I could get into more arguments against the claim your making, such as, the emotional argument, the baptisms argument, the contextual argument, and etc., but I do believe that these arguments are the most persuasive. Maybe, you will find them persuasive. Maybe not. Sorry for the long essay; I get excited about things like this.

One more point before I go. Does it make more sense to reread 40 scriptures as including baptism in same shape or form, in order to fit some framework of salvation? or does it make more sense to take all the statements at face value, that is, as conditional states and not as bi-conditional statements? You talk about people making things complicated and overly intellectual, which maybe I did by going into symbolic logic, but you’re actually including much more intellectual and exegetical work into your argument than me. I’m simply taking each one as a true conditional statement. That is Acts 2:38 is a true conditional statement on its own, and so is Romans 10:9. In some sense your saying that Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 are not true by themselves but only partially true, which I actually think makes them entirely false, but semantics. Again, it appears to me that you are creating a framework, and then reading that framework into the bible. The framework may be true still, but it will also appear circular to some extent.

---

[1] I won’t go into this move, but you should take a logic class, and it will explain why they both logically imply the other, that is, if one is true then then it follows that the contrapositive of that statement must also be true.

[2] This statement is literally saying One is saved if and only if they have done these five things.

[3] ¹³ “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” (Eph 1:13-14) Again this is saying in symbolic logic terms. B®HS, HS®S. If you believe, then you get the Holy Spirit, and if you have the Holy Spirit, then you are saved. Paul has good logic. This is a transitive statement.

[4]  ⁹ “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” And 13“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

[5] Which given my argument would be the best point to attack. Wink. Wink. I don’t know how successful you will actually be, however. Likely, any argument against it will be somewhat circular, in that you will use your framework to claim that Cornelius is not saved. However, since the argument is about the framework, it appears circular to use the framework as a premise in your defense of it.

[6] “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5)