What Does Baptism Do?Posted by Rachel on August 12th, 2003
I’ve witnessed too many Reformed baby baptisms where the meaning is completely sucked out of the entire event because the pastor spends 10-15 minutes explaining what baptism can’t do. “It doesn’t regenerate, it doesn’t save, it’s just water, there’s nothing special about it.” Usually they go on until the entire congregation is convinced that baptism isn’t really a means of grace after all. We can’t have any confidence or assurance in it. After all, it’s just a sign, right?
But then, just to save the whole thing from sounding totally depressing and pointless, they might throw in that by being baptised, we enter into the covenant, the saved community, the Body of Christ.
What the heck? If salvation isn’t about being united to Christ, what is it? If regeneration isn’t about being sealed in the new covenant, then what? So we enter the saved community. We’re somehow in it, but not one of its members? How is that supposed to work? If you’re going to say that you become a member of the saved community, I’m sorry, but that makes you saved. We are saved when we are baptised. We are united to Christ through this holy sacrament. God claims us and names us as His own. We become His children. If becoming a child of God is not being saved, then what is? What could be better than entering into His sheepfold?
That’s what I believe to be salvation. I don’t believe it’s about some amazing conversion that will serve as a great and shocking testimony. I don’t think it’s about how much of the Bible you understand, or how well you can grasp the concept of your salvation. I believe that salvation is about Christ dying for us while we were still sinners, and I believe that it’s about Him bringing us into His covenant and loving us when we can’t even speak or contemplate the 5 points of calvinism or the westminster confession. I think that some fall, as the parable of the sower shows to be clear. But the point is, baptism is one of the greatest examples of God’s love and mercy and our inability. God does save us through baptism; He draws us to Him through it. It’s that simple.
If you want to disagree, be consistent and say, “I’m going to sprinkle some water on this baby just as a reminder that it’s only water and serves no purpose nor gives any grace to him. It just washes his hair, if that.”
August 12th, 2003 at 6:28 am
Ah yes… The Reformed habit of overintellectualizing things that should be left alone. It’d be more helpful if they spent 10-15 minutes explaining why mode of baptism doesn’t matter so I wouldn’t have to answer to the Baptist relatives that believe that immersion is the only valid mode. *groans*
August 12th, 2003 at 8:38 am
Err…so your conclusion is that baptism is a mark of salvation/regeneration?
August 12th, 2003 at 10:42 am
I knew you’d say something, Pieter.
What do you mean by “a mark of”? I believe that baptism regenerates in the sense of it bringing us into the new covenant. When the Bible talks about regeneration, it’s talking about the new covenant. Baptism seals us into the new covenant, and so yes, it regenerates.
What a lot of Reformed people don’t realize is that people like Calvin and Bucer held to this belief of baptismal regeneration.
This is part of a post-baptismal thanksgiving prayer in Bucer’s strasbourg liturgy:
“Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through your holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved Son, our only Savior, and is now your child and heir.”
August 12th, 2003 at 11:06 am
something similar can be sed of reformed eucharist … an almost forgotten ritual thereamongst
August 12th, 2003 at 12:04 pm
I think, Rachel, that Reformed folks might talk past one another on this issue because they haven’t agreed first on definition of terms. What does “saved” mean?
If I read you right, the way you use the word “saved” you would say Simon Magus qualified (Acts 7:13). And yet Peter certainly seemed to think he would “perish” (see v. 20).
Depending on what one means by the term, we could both say he was saved and wasn’t.
August 12th, 2003 at 12:20 pm
Definition of terms is the biggest hurdle to get over. But I think that Reformed people are often used to using the terms “saved” and “regenerated” as something different than how the Bible uses them. Many of God’s elect perished. They were the saved, chosen people of God, but they rejected Him. Like I mentioned in my post, perhaps too briefly, is that the parable of the sower makes a really good argument for temporal salvation.
It gets complicating when you have to create two different definitions of what being saved is, but I understand that it’s probably necessary because of most people’s understanding of the terms. No, I don’t mean that baptism saves in the sense of it being some sort of ticket or secret into heaven. There are responsibilities for the baptised Christian, and if he doesn’t carry those out, he will perish.
On a side note, that’s probably one of the primary ways one can take God’s name in vain – by naming the name of Christ, being a Christian through baptism, and not carrying out the responsibilities with it.
So, to further qualify what I mean about being saved when baptised: Yes, I believe that person becomes a child of God; yes, I believe that he or she is given the blessings of salvation and is one of the brethren; yes, that person is now a Christian. But no, I don’t believe that this guarantees eternal salvation or frees that person from the responsibility of living a godly life with a true relationship with Christ. We must all work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We all need to abide in Him, or our baptism curses us (drowns us.)
Maybe that explains it all a little better.
August 12th, 2003 at 1:12 pm
Excellent point on taking God’s name in vain. AMEN. And a good job clarifying a pretty complex issue.
But when you say that “many of God’s elect” perished, you are using different definitions for election even in that one sentence–and that’s what generates the absurdity that makes your sentence so rhetorically effective.
But if we use consistent definitions, there is no absurdity. “Many of God’s ‘elect’”–I think you are referring to corporate election–a very legitimate usage–”perished”–but here you are referring to individuals *within* that community, right? In reality, when we speak of corporate election, it is not true to say that *any* perished. Christ’s body (as a group) will not perish unless it’s head, Christ, perishes.
Speaking about *individual* election (also a thoroughly biblical concept), it is also true that none of those individually elected will perish.
But when we blur the corporate/individual distinction in election we get absurdity. If we keep the definitions distinct, we can say that no elect person ever perishes. But it is true you can be a member of the corporate elect and not be individually elect. Judas is a great example.
Sorry about the length–but this is complicated. And still one final thing needs said. As a pastor, you have to speak in the theological lingua franca that your congregation uses–otherwise you unnecessarily trouble their peace. Meanwhile, the pastor should be seeking to bring them to biblical usage of terms.
August 12th, 2003 at 3:25 pm
Sorry for not clarifying that by “elect” I was referring to God’s “corporate elect.” I think that’s mostly how the Bible speaks of election, so it slipped my mind to actually clarify that.
“In reality, when we speak of corporate election, it is not true to say that *any* perished. Christ’s body (as a group) will not perish unless it’s head, Christ, perishes.”
I’m not sure if I follow what you’re talking about. Yes, members of Christ’s body can reject Him and be cut off. That is made clear in John 5. Do you mean that as long as the elect are part of Christ’s body, they cannot perish because they have life in the head, in Christ? Of course. They can only perish IF they reject Christ and He cuts them off for their unfaithfulness.
August 12th, 2003 at 4:32 pm
I knew you’d say something, Pieter.
*thinks* Should I take this as a good thing (that you knew I’d say something)? Or bad thing?
Many of God’s elect perished. They were the saved, chosen people of God, but they rejected Him.
Doesn’t this mean that they weren’t actually members of God’s elect. They weren’t truly saved, which is why their salvation was only temporary.
(Ok, reading Joost’s post, I suppose if somebody ever explains the concept of “corporate election” to me, and if that concept has any Biblical grounding, then I’d be able to agree with what you said up above.)
No, I don’t mean that baptism saves in the sense of it being some sort of ticket or secret into heaven. and I believe that baptism regenerates in the sense of it bringing us into the new covenant.
Ok, I agree. I know a guy who has been baptized, brought up in the Church, and is therefore considered to be in the Covenant…yet he’s broken the Covenant and is living with his girlfriend. So yes, he was in the Covenant…indeed, one could argue he is still in the Covenant, though he is rejecting the terms of the Covenant.
But is he saved? Is he regenerated? Where are you getting your term definitions from? Why use these terms when they mean to most people something entirely different from what you seem to be using them to mean?
When I say “I’m saved”…I mean I’m going to Heaven, because Jesus’ blood has atoned for my sins. When I say “I’m regenerated”…I mean basically the same thing…I’m born again, and because of that rebirth, I am saved and going to Heaven.
Yet when you say that someone is saved, you don’t mean they are going to Heaven? Ok…where are you getting your term definitions from? Calvin and Bucer or somewhere in the Bible?
But no, I don’t believe that this guarantees eternal salvation.
That’s good to know.
Umm…Joost goes on to talk about corporate and individual election. I adhere to and am pretty familiar with the five points of Calvinism, but what the heck is corporate election?
Ah. Wait. Do you perhaps refer to, for example, the idea that although Israel is corporately elect, not every Israelite is individually elected?
If that’s what you’re talking about, then how would you apply that today? Perhaps…The Church is corporately elected, yet not every church-member is individually elected.
Joost said: As a pastor, you have to speak in the theological lingua franca that your congregation uses–otherwise you unnecessarily trouble their peace.
Yes. Please.
Also, to what extent, if any, is what you’re saying related to what’s coming out of the whole Auburn Avenue controversy? I haven’t followed that very closely, but I know people who have, and who have told me that the Wilson/Wilkins side seems to be teaching “baptismal regeneration.”
August 12th, 2003 at 10:33 pm
Pieter,
It would probably not be beneficial to either of us if I just answered your isolated questions. From where you are coming from, you’d need to be completely re-oriented with the mindset of the covenant that I hold to in order to understand my answers.
I’m not sure if I am the person to explain it all to you, but feel free to email me about it if you’d like. It’s hard to do it all over this commenting system.
August 13th, 2003 at 5:49 am
I would think that “individual election” is as corporate as “corporate election” (and vice versa), since the preserved and persevering remnant is as much a corporate entity as the present corporate body. And to be part of the corporately elect people of God is something that is true of every member individually.
Otherwise, you have the peculiarity that the eschatological goal of salvation is individual, while the means is corporate. Moreover, the individual Israelite could raise the question, “I know the promises of God are for Israel, but are they for me?”
Perhaps language such as “historal” and “eschatological” election would be more helpful and avoid these odd oppositions between the individual and corporate.
August 13th, 2003 at 9:27 am
Rachel’s initial statement was:
“Many of God’s elect perished. They were the saved, chosen people of God, but they rejected Him.”
A closer look at the use of terms might help clarify. My interpolations are in brackets:
“Many [here Rachel is speaking of individuals] of God’s elect [here Rachel is speaking of the covenant community, which as the body of Christ is elect, because Christ is himself "THE ELECT"] perished.”
Because there at least two, and actually more like five senses of election in the Bible, and Rachel has used one term with two different definitions, she has equivocated in order to make us all think.
And look, it worked. . . .
But *in* our thinking let’s go back and straighten out the puzzle. The Body of Christ is the corporate elect, and the body of Christ will never perish (though individuals may be removed from the body because of unbelief).
“The elect lady” (2 Jn. 1, 13) is an example of an elect individual, and she will never perish.
Judas & Hymenaeus and examples of those sharing in corporate election who were not indidivually elect. As far as we know, they perished.
My point is that the only way “the elect perish” is if we equivocate, using two different meanings for the same word.
August 13th, 2003 at 10:06 am
Well, the question here is whether the quality of “being elect” that applies to the corporate entity is something that applies also to each and every constituent part of that entity so that one may say not only that “they are the elect people of God” but also that “this individual person is elect (qua member of the elect people).”
I think that transfer makes perfect sense.
As I see the biblical language functioning (the biblical language, mind you–not the systematic-theological language), the Bible is quite happy to say that “that elect person over there perished” or “these elect people over have reprobated themselves.”
See Holwerda’s dicussion.
August 13th, 2003 at 11:04 am
If I read you right, the way you use the word “saved” you would say Simon Magus qualified (Acts 7:13). And yet Peter certainly seemed to think he would “perish” (see v. 20).
Joost: That passage isn’t in Acts 7, or in Acts 17. Could you check and let me know where it is?
As I see the biblical language functioning (the biblical language, mind you–not the systematic-theological language), the Bible is quite happy to say that “that elect person over there perished” or “these elect people over have reprobated themselves.”
Garver: Don’t we downplay God’s sovereignty, though, when we talk about people reprobating themselves? Aren’t all things a direct result of God’s predestination?
Also, could you provide some specific examples where the Bible “is quite happy to say that ‘that elect person over there perished’ or ‘these elect people over have reprobated themselves’”?
From where you are coming from, you’d need to be completely re-oriented with the mindset of the covenant that I hold to in order to understand my answers.
Rachel: Ok…I thought I was pretty covenant-oriented. I’m a big fan of R.C. Sproul, Jr. If he isn’t covenant-oriented, I don’t know what is.
I will probably email you a little bit later.
Also, I just want to clarify…I’m trying not to sound antagonistic, because it’s not my intent to be antagonistic. I just want to better understand your take on the issue under discussion, especially considering the fact that some of the things you’re saying sound a little strange to me. I hope I’m not coming across as antagonistic or abrasive.
August 13th, 2003 at 11:12 am
Garver,
Thanks for your explanations. They’re much more helpful than mine are.
Pieter,
I didn’t say you didn’t hold to a covenantal view. It just isn’t mine.
August 13th, 2003 at 11:19 am
I’m a big fan of R.C. Sproul, Jr. If he isn’t covenant-oriented, I don’t know what is.
Oh that explains a lot. Just kidding RC!
August 13th, 2003 at 11:21 am
It’s acts 8
August 13th, 2003 at 11:32 am
Thanks.
August 13th, 2003 at 11:50 am
Yes, Acts 8. Sorry.
Garver: in a way corporate election makes an individual like Judas “elect”. But not in the *same* way.
And though systematic theology has its weaknesses, it is impossible to avoid (we are engaging in it now). When we honestly look at what the whole bible says about the subject of election, we see that when we classify the terms correctly and do not equivocate, the elect, whether corporate or individual–do not perish.
August 13th, 2003 at 1:38 pm
Well, I guess I just disagree with your exegesis, then, Joost. I also probably have problems with your use of the terminology, which seems to presuppose that “equivocation” is the only other option than using a term entirely univocally.
“Elect” just means “chosen” and refers to what God does in time and history with particular persons and groups. Some are chosen for a time for a particular purpose. Some are chosen perseveringly. So, I’m not sure why there should be a problem in thinking some who are “elect” perish. Though I don’t suppose this is just an issue of the semantics of “elect.”
Here’s what Holwerda concludes (prof of OT at Kampen), after surveying the relavant biblical data:
“1. It is a pity that gradually all those concepts (predestination, providence, counsel, election) have begun to mean the same thing for us, and that consequently we read the Bible in a sloppy way. Election also is for us a decree, a very specific decree with regard to salvation. The Bible, however, distinguishes between predestination and election.
2. I have received the impression that, as far as the covenant-election problem is concerned, the Bible uses the word election in a twofold sense:
a. that election whereby the covenant is established (I);
b. the election whereby God, according to His own good pleasure, selects from the disobedient covenant circle the remnant (II).
3. We should then have three series:
a. election I covenant promise covenant calling obedience blessing;
b. election I covenant promise covenant demand disobedience covenant breach apostasy Gods repentance covenant wrath;
c. election I covenant promise covenant demand disobedience compassion election II remnant conversion restoration.
This is very sketchy, but I hope that my goal is clear. We should, I believe, get a lot further if the connection between these revealed data are investigated thoroughly. It seems to me that some constructions have not taken various of these Scriptural data sufficiently into account.”
Also, one might note, on such an account the term “reprobrate” only refers directly and centrally to those elect who reject God’s electing grace, though it may well apply to others by analogy.
Of course, you’re right that we already doing systematics here, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was simply distinguishing between the way in which the term “elect” has come to be used traditionally in Augustinian systematics and how I think a more biblical re-orientation of systematics would have to qualify that.
August 13th, 2003 at 1:55 pm
Pieter, the Reformed tradition has always maintained that the cause of reprobation lies in the rebelliousness of creature. Election and reprobation (here used in the traditional dogmatic senses) are not symmetrical.
If we come to faith and persevere it is by God’s grace alone. If we never come to faith or only enjoy what the Synod of Dort called a “temporary faith,” then that is our own fault.
As Dort states, “The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called” (Article 9 under the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine).
The Hungarian Reformed Confession expresses the principle at stake here most clearly: “As it is altogether impossible that things that are in direct repugnance to one another and are mutually destructive can be the efficient and formal cause of their contraries; as light is not the cause of darkness, nor heat of cold (Psalms 5, 46, 61, 66, 80, 84, 114, 135); so it is impossible for God, who is Light, Righteousness, Truth, Wisdom, Goodness, Life, to be the cause of darkness, sin and falsehood, ignorance, blindness, malice, and death; but Satan and men are the cause of all these. For God cannot ex se and per se do things that he prohibits and on account of which he condemns.”
As for biblical passages that speak of the elect perishing, consider Isaiah and the other prophets of the exile.
August 14th, 2003 at 6:50 am
Garver–you wrote:
“Well, I guess I just disagree with your exegesis, then, Joost.”
I don’t mean to be picky, but there can be no exegesis when there is no text being quoted to exegete. So far, we haven’t discussed any specific passages–it’s been systematics. I think we’d both be more comfortable, and on more solid ground, if we discussed Scripture directly.
Previously, you wrote:
“the Bible is quite happy to say that “that elect person over there perished” or “these elect people over have reprobated themselves.”
Why don’t we discuss a few of these examples–and move our discussion from systematics to exegesis? I suspect we’ll find there is less disagreement than it appears there is now.
August 14th, 2003 at 3:28 pm
Fair enough. I guess I disagree then with the conclusion you drew from your unstated exegesis. Or something.
In any case, I think a more exegetical discussion would probably be quite fruitful. Nonetheless, I’m not sure I have the time to give to it at the moment (I’m in the midst here of preparing for the upcoming semester).
Still, if I were to proceed, I would want to begin, not the question of the “elect perishing,” but first the biblical notion of “election” more generally. In particular, I would want to look at those passages that suggest that “election” is primarily God’s choosing of particular persons and people in history, at particular times and places, for particular intended ends (that choice, of course, grounded in God’s eternal counsel).
August 14th, 2003 at 4:42 pm
And I think the discussion would have been profitable. Perhaps in another life. . . .
August 15th, 2003 at 7:24 pm
Or another three weeks.
August 26th, 2003 at 5:36 am
Since Simon Magus did believe just like everyone else who was saved in Acts, then yeah, he would count as one of the saved when he believed, while at the same time, Peter’s statement about perishing holds true. That’s what the bible says, so I’m certainly not going to force a systematic theological construction on it to make one of the statements more real than any other.
August 26th, 2003 at 6:02 am
I dunno garver. Judas is kinda emblematic of the reprobabte person whom God chose to be the betrayer. Since his foreordination was always as “a devil” I have a tough time seeing him as both simultaneously elect and reprobate.
In what sense isn’t *everybody* elect under that schema?
August 26th, 2003 at 7:14 am
But Jesus “elected” Judas as his disciple and apostle. That’s not true of everyone.
August 26th, 2003 at 7:56 am
Well, yeah, but isn’t that twisting the traditional meaning of the word “elect”? Jesus chose Judas as His disciple so that Judas could betray Jesus. Jesus didn’t choose Judas as His disciple so that Judas could be redeemed.
Isn’t it a bit strange that I’ve grown up in the Reformed faith, and attended a Reformed church for a good ten years, and they’ve always taught me that election meant God chose somebody to be saved (really saved) and reprobation meant God chose somebody to be damned (a pot made for destruction)? How is it that you come to contradict the interpretations of Scripture that every Reformed person I’ve come across up until you has posited?
August 26th, 2003 at 7:34 pm
Well, at no point have I contradicted the theological notion that God, in his grace, has determined to effectively bring some people to salvation and has allowed others to remain in their sins.
I’m just saying that this is not the only thing the Bible ever means when it uses the term “election.” Moreover, this is hardly news for the Reformed tradition.
Calvin, for instance, writes:
“Now then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word purely preached unto us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein we have reason to confess that he has shown himself generous to us.
For by what title is the Gospel given to us, rather than to others who make greater account of themselves than we do and who are not inferior to us in the eyes of the world? Why does God pass over great kingdoms and principalities and nations of renown and choose a little nook and a small number of people so that his Word will be preached there? When it rains upon us and all the rest of the world remains still in drought, is it not to be concluded that God has the liberty to do good to whom he wishes?
And is this not of his love, to which we are then beholden? Yes.
So then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives men salvation–as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered uncorruptly–we may say it is an election of God.
But yet for all that, in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of the Church, yet if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut us off again and reserve a final number to himself.
And though there may be a great multitude of us who confess all with one mouth that God has chosen us, yet we cannot therefore say that he confirms us as his children unless we live in pureness of faith and have thus ratified that covenant God has made with us.
And so let us understand that God’s generosity shows itself in all kinds of ways to us, and that therefore we have all the more reason to love him more and more and to yield to him all praise.
Do we have his Word? It is free grace to us, where he has bound us to himself. Do we have his sacraments? They are the badges of his fatherly election. We have not deserved these things…”
(Sermon 53 on Deuteronomy)
April 27th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Do what I did to get the full explanation. Join the Catholic Church–no apologies there, we get the whole story and the whole sacrament.
Watch out for the Pharisees!
June 8th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Let us look at the Bible and the scriptures that concern Babtism. First I will go to John 3:1-7=John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
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.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus tells Nicodemus you must be born of the water and the spirit. Don’t stop reading yet there is more.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
So what does baptism do for us. Agian lets let the scripture talk….not me!
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.
Acts 2:38 clearly says baptism remits your 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.
This says baptism washes away your sins..
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
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 now saves us…
What does baptism do? Again scripture tells us clearly.
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 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.
Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
Romans 6:6 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.
Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Romans 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
That is the only deffinition of baptism given in the bible. It does not say that it makes you a member of a local church. It does not say thatthe reason we should do it because Jesus done it.
Yes there is more to salvation than just babtism.. Acts 2:38 just summarizes then plan to enter into the kingdom.
You must repent to be saved:
Jesus said in Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Accept you repent you.
You must be baptized in order to be saved: Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
You must have the the Holy Spirit to be saved:
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
To be saved you must follow peace and holiness:
Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
I can not find any other plan of salvation in the bible… Rightly dividing the word of truth…line upon line, precept upon precept.