Is Baptism Required To Be Saved?

QUESTION: Hi Rick. My daughter has started to question her faith because she says the Church teaches that unless  you’ve been baptized even if you’re an infant or a young child, you’re still going to hell.  Is that true?

ANSWER: This is a long standing area of dispute within Christendom, going way back. The name of the view that says that baptism is required for salvation is called “baptismal regeneration.” A form of this view is held by some Protestants and all Catholics. And it is most clearly seen in the practice of infant baptism. Why baptize infants? Because many Christians came to believe that all people are lost without God’s grace and that includes children and infants who may not be capable of moral knowledge but who are nevertheless bent toward sin (Ps 51:5). The practice of infant baptism was a way to cover such persons under God’s grace.  The practice dates back to at least the 3rd century, there’s little evidence it was practiced broadly before then.

EVERYONE, YOUNG OR OLD, NEEDS GRACE

Now, in principle, the logic of “baptismal regeneration” affirms what all Christians affirm: no one is saved except by the grace of God. Baptism of infants says, no one is innocent and thus no one can be saved by themselves. God must cleanse anyone before they can be restored to life, young or old.

This agreement on the need for grace is somewhat ironic. You see, Protestants broke from the Catholic church based on the perception that the Church of Rome had come to affirm a Grace+ view of salvation. IE, you are saved by God’s grace, PLUS good works you do, acts of penance, obedience to church practices etc. Instead, the Protestants came back with this mantra: “sola gratia” (By GRACE alone). The irony is this: in baptizing infants, the Catholic Church actually affirms what Protestants were trying to affirm, that God’s grace is absolutely the only means of salvation.

By baptizing infants, the Catholic church implicitly affirms that we are saved by God’s grace alone. How does it do this? Because being young didn’t make you innocent or implicitly righteous. ALL need to be covered by God’s grace and baptism was deemed to be the only means grace could be conferred on anyone, young or old.

And so this is actually a point of real agreement: no Christian today (Protestant or Catholic) would say that we are saved by YOUTH alone! If so, this makes Christ’s sacrifice unnecessary because it would suggest that infants and children are inherently perfect. Which is another way of saying they don’t NEED grace. No, we must reject all views that suggest there is any other means of salvation OTHER THAN the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ. We are not saved by being young, or legalistically faultless, or Jewish or any other condition of human effort or work or pedigree.

We need God’s grace.

IS BAPTISM GOD’S MEANS OF GRACE?

Ah, but now the question is this: is the physical rite of baptism God’s only chosen means of conferring his grace on needy humans, whether young or old? Well, the Bible seems very clear on this point. The answer is, no. We know this three ways: the explicit teaching of the Apostles, a key Biblical example, and early Church history. Let’s take those in turn.

PROBLEMS WITH “BAPTISMAL REGENERATION”

Just think about the problems we bring into the picture, if we say that the physical rite of baptism and not faith is the means of grace.

First, baptism is an act of obedience, thus a good work we do. And if baptism is a good work we do, it implicitly undermines the idea that God saved us “NOT because of the righteous things we had done, [including baptism] but because of his mercy.” Titus 3:4-5.

Second, when we perform this rite on small children, the only faith involved is the faith of the baptizer. This would seem to introduce a means of salvation by vicarious faith. IE, I can save you by MY faith, not yours. Such vicarious human merit (or condemnation) is utterly refuted by the repeated affirmation of individual responsibility in scripture.

so, I can’t condemn another by my sin, and I can’t save another by my effort either.  Thus, we are saved by grace through faith, not baptism.

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF BAPTISM?

Why then be baptized?

Because Jesus commanded water baptism as sign and seal of the inner “baptism” (literally immersion/washing) of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is also a physical sign to the world of entry into the Church (Matt 28:19-20). Many Protestants who affirm this deny there is ANY grace conferred in the rite. I do not believe that. I think that baptism DOES confer a grace on the believer, but not as a primary means of the grace of salvation but rather as God’s way of sealing the inner reality of faith.

Thus, because baptism is commanded by the Lord, it works to seal the faith decision of the believer, who could otherwise walk in uncertainty about the reality of their faith, or their membership in the Church. This is why Jesus said we are born of the spirit AND the water (John 3). Therefore, if one were to get baptized without preexisting faith, the rite would confer no grace whatsoever. To presume it could have an effect without the faith of the participant, would be to introduce a kind of pagan magic into the Church where the water itself, used by a properly anointed priest, is able somehow to save.

I don’t discount that the decision of faith by which we are saved was tied intimately with baptism in the early church. The scriptures affirm this. Baptism was a powerful pointer to rebirth, renewal, death to sin, resurrection to new life, inner cleansing (Romans 6:1-4).  Yes.

FAITH WITHOUT BAPTISM, BAPTISM WITHOUT FAITH

But if it were to be so intimately tied that it was in fact an absolutely REQUIRED means of grace for salvation, then the Apostles would NEVER have mentioned faith WITHOUT also mentioning baptism. As I’ve shown, the scriptures mention the means of faith WITHOUT mentioning baptism numerous times. This does not negate the importance of baptism, but clearly puts it in a subservient, and sequentially secondary position to faith/belief/repentance.

So while we often read mentions of faith in Scripture WITHOUT baptism, we never have a mention of baptism, without faith. For example, in 1 Peter 3:21, when Peter says, “And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you…” he quickly clarifies that a public washing is not the point or the value: “not by removing dirt from your body,” but rather,
the inner faith of the participant brings the value. As he says, “but as a response to God from a clean conscience.” And even this faith would be useless unless based in God’s work through Christ: “It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Again, when Jesus says we cannot enter the Kingdom unless we are “born of water and the Spirit”, it might suggest water baptism is required (John 3:5).  But when he doubles down on this requirement 3 verses later, he only mentions
being reborn “of the Spirit”, not water (John 3:8).  This suggests either that water baptism is secondary to heart “baptism” by God’s Spirit OR the “born of water” in verse 5 is actually referring to the effusion of water involved in our physical birth, not baptism. (I've seen Catholics bristle at this suggestions, but it does tie nicely to Nicodemus's question about enterning into his mother's womb a second time.)

So the Apostles seem to uniformly suggest that faith is preeminent in accessing the grace of salvation, not the rite of baptism, which is in a secondary role.

KEY EXAMPLE OF SALVATION WITHOUT BAPTISM

There is a key biblical example that illustrates all this:  the thief on the cross. When he claims faith in Jesus, he obviously demonstrates the biblical means of grace – faith! He says, “remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus, in response to his faith, gives him this stunning promise, “I assure you that today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43.

We have two things demonstrated in this interaction. One, the means of salvation is not good works, but grace as this notorious sinner is promised salvation by Jesus. The second thing is that a man about to die within hours of this declaration of faith in Jesus clearly did not get baptized. So the promise of heaven is sure, and yet the rite of baptism is totally missing.

Now, no one thinks this is a normal Christian life! Normally Christians get baptized. In fact, I would go further. If one refuses baptism, even if they claim faith in Jesus, I would suggest this may indicate they do NOT have saving faith. Since the rite is commanded by Jesus, it authenticates true saving faith. And thus, if the outer rite is refused, one rightly may question the inner reality of faith. It is NORMAL that faith and baptism are seamlessly connected, conferring the grace of salvation and the sealing of faith in the public life of the believer. 

When the rite is consciously refused, we may question saving faith.  But where the rite cannot be performed, Jesus clearly showed it was not required for grace of salvation to be obtained.

WHAT ABOUT BABIES?

So if faith is required for salvation and baptism isn’t (even if it is a required part of every normal Christian life), what about the salvation of babies or young children who cannot exercise faith? If they are not saved by their youth, are they all in mortal danger of hell if they die before they get an opportunity to express saving faith? You can see why this
concern led to the Church doing infant baptism more and more.

So we must investigate what the early church fathers thought about that problem. We find that there is no clear affirmation of child baptism before the 3rd century.  Those that do affirm infant baptism also often affirmed categories for believers who might still be saved even if circumstances militated against their being water baptized.  These special exemptions showed their affirmation of baptismal regeneration was conditional and therefore not particularly strong.  By the 3rd century, the practice certainly was starting to gain momentum, but before that some very prominent Christian thinkers taught against it. Like Tertullian who wrote in around 210:

Tertullian refers to a key teaching from Jesus that would let us relax about the fate of unbaptized youths (and anyone else) who cannot cognitively express faith by which they could be saved. Jesus said about children, “let the little children come to me, for to such belong the kingdom of God.” Children are, in this sense prototypical citizens of the Kingdom of God.

This gives us a window into why they may be saved without baptism and before they can publicly express a knowledge of the Gospel and faith in Jesus. You see, babies and young children are utterly dependent on their parents. And by the way they cast themselves onto those early representatives of our Heavenly Father’s care, they have implicit faith. So it
is reasonable to infer that they are saved by such implicit faith through the grace of God which he causes to fall on all who cannot yet articulate trust in the Lord Jesus.

So, we can affirm the salvation of all babies and young children without baptism, while maintaining the biblical stance that no one is saved except by the grace of God through faith.