Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

This answer to this question is undoubtedly one of the most debated among Christianity. There are many different ways today�s faiths try to answer this question, and most of them answer it in a way which is not in harmony with God�s Word. Why is it that Christians, who all use the same set of Holy Scriptures, that is to say the Holy Bible, all come away with different answers to this question and many others? This question is answered in my article �A Bible, Bible? We already have a Bible!� (LINK). There I explain and provide scriptural proof for why the Bible is not the only Word of God, why it is not perfect, and why we should not worship it, but rather study it. In conclusion, the point made is that the Bible IS NOT God, thus it is not perfect. Men have erroneously translated many parts of it (as can be shown) and that is the reason for all the confusion. Although the Bible is not perfect, it has still been well preserved, so we DO need to study it. But since it is not perfect, God has given us a way to find out what is problematic in it in order to resolve those issues, that is, He has given us prayer, the Holy Ghost, and the Book of Mormon.

But to continue on this topic of baptism, let us think about how different religions may answer the above titled question. If one was to direct this question to a Catholic, the response will likely be something very similar to, �of course baptism is necessary or else you will be damned, that�s why we should all be baptized soon after birth�. If you were to ask almost any Protestant, they would quickly claim that we are saved by God�s grace and nothing else is needed. So what is left? The only answer from Christianity that will be strikingly different from the above is the answer that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) provides. I am sure that most people who make an honest effort to serve Christ will recall that the Bible clearly tells us:

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5)

But many seem to forget this because they claim that it does not matter what faith you belong to, but more importantly, they claim, is one�s relationship with God. How can this thinking be based on the Bible when considering this scripture from Ephesians? We are clearly told that there is only one faith, and that there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord, so I think this should force us all agree that we DO need to find that truth. We also have scriptures that tell us that few will enter into the kingdom of God, as did Jesus Christ:

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

With this scriptural background, we can see that this concept that we can worship or believe any way we please, basically, is in complete contradiction with the Word of God. We must find the true Lord, the true faith and the true baptism as described by Paul in Ephesians. We must also acknowledge that the road to returning home to God is a difficult one in which much struggle, pain, and sorrow will take place. �Few there be that find� the way to the Lord�s presence, and it will clearly not be as simple as just accepting Christ as our Savior (although this is a very important step required to return to Him, it is not all that is required). We must do more. We must obey His commandments, we must teach others about Him, we must follow His example of defending the weak, turning the other cheek, reaching out to the poor and hungry, and visiting the sick. We must seek Him through prayer and we must grow closer to Him through sincere fasting and study. We must remember Him by partaking of His Holy Sacraments which signify how He suffered for us through the symbolism of His body and blood. Much more is also required of us which I will not list primarily because we are here to inquire about the topic of baptism. So aside from all these things described above, baptism is also necessary to once again see God, as will be shown through the His Word.

We begin from the times before Christ, the times of which many claim there was no ordinance of baptism. From Latter-Day scripture, we find that many of our ancient fathers, including Adam, were baptized. This can be found in The Pearl of Great Price:

"And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man. And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever" (Moses 6:64-66)

Aside from this scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon also is full of mention of baptism before the times of Christ. This is just one thing that shows that the Book of Mormon is not a fraud and that Joseph Smith is a TRUE PROPHET of GOD. Why? Because as will be seen, many believe baptism was not known in Old Testament times, but Joseph Smith, being a prophet of God, was revealed through the translation of ancient scriptures (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price), that baptism was known and practiced by God�s people. Christians in Joseph Smith�s day laughed at him for this claim, and now the truth of the subject is coming to light. Now many of you may say �this is Mormon scripture, not the Bible, so I need Biblical proof�. Well let us find proof for those of you who lack faith in scripture outside of the Bible. But first, why is it so hard to believe there was baptism before the times of Christ? Just because the Old Testament doesn�t spell it out (Is the Bible perfect and complete? See my �A Bible, Bible? We already have a Bible!� article). In order to show that baptism was practiced before the times of Christ we have archeological and historic proof, New Testament proof, and we know that God is �the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever� (Hebrews 13:8). What more do we need? Besides, as Jeff Lindsay (LDS Apologetic � find him at www.jefflindsay.com) says:

"It's a popular misconception that baptism was unknown before the time of Christ. Ritual washings go way back in Jewish tradition. When John the Baptist came on the scene, no one asked, "What's this strange ritual called baptism?" Immersion or washing as a covenant-making ritual was nothing new." (Jeff Lindsay, http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Baptism.shtml#bom )

Did anyone question John the Baptist of this ordinance? He was baptizing people before Jesus Christ actually began His teaching, and yet many claim that baptism was not practiced before the New Testament? If this ordinance was never performed before, then wouldn�t there have been many people who would have questioned John about this? No, they accepted baptism, because it was not the first time they had heard of it. Even the Pharisees who tried to find fault in John displayed their knowledge of the ordinance of baptism:

"And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (John 1:24-25)

The Pharisees did not condemn him of creating a new ordinance, namely baptism, but rather they were trying to find out who exactly he claimed to be, that way they could charge him with claiming to be the Messiah or something similar. Thus in these verses, they were questioning his authority to baptize in order to find out who he was. Thus the Jews also practiced baptism themselves.

In the New Testament we can also find that baptism was practiced in the Old Testament as explained by Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

What? The Israelites were baptized in the days of Moses? Yes, �they were all baptized� and they all did it in order to follow �that spiritual Rock� which �was Christ�. I know many Christians out there will disagree about my interpretation on this scripture, but Paul says �baptized�. If that is what Paul wrote, then that is what he meant. All other mentions of baptism in the New Testament also refer to baptism as described on this page.

Now to show the historical or Archeological point of view, one needs only study the Dead Sea Scrolls for questions concerning baptism. The Essenes, the name given to the community of people who held and kept sacred the Dead Sea Scrolls, were active years before Christ. It has been discovered that the Essenes had maintained water installations and �the care taken in constructing these installations may suggest that they were intended for the ceremony of ritual immersion.� (William Sanford La Sor, �Discovering What Jewish Miqva�ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism,� Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan./Feb. 1987, 55-56.) One excellent source for a brief coverage of how the Dead Sea Scrolls can teach about pre-Christ baptism can be found at Mike Ash�s Mormon Fortress. Here he describes how ancient Jews did practice baptism for purification and to represent a new covenant with God. Below I provide just a couple of quotes that Mike Ash uses for his article that definitely set the tone of his piece on this subject:

"In 1955 Time magazine wrote that the most �startling disclosure of the Essene documents [Dead Sea Scrolls] so far published is that the sect possessed, years before Christ, a terminology and practice that have always been considered uniquely Christian. The Essenes practiced baptism and shared in a liturgical repast of bread and wine presided over by a priest. They believed in redemption and in the immortality of the soul. Their most important leader was... a Messianic prophet-priest blessed with divine revelation.... Many phrases, symbols and precepts similar to those in Essene literature are used in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles....�(quoted Hugh Nibley (1956), �More Voices from the Dust�, Instructor, March 1956, 71.) This discovery has been so startling and disturbing to most churches that 'concerted efforts have... been made by some religionists to literally sweep the contents of the old manuscripts under ecclesiastical �rugs� and firmly nail down the edges.' (O. Preston Robinson and Christine H. Robinson, Christ�s Eternal Gospel (SLC: Deseret Book Co., 1976), 2.)"

This then shows that baptism has always been an ordinance which God had intended for man to partake of. Although the Old Testament does not mention baptism, we can be sure that it was always practiced by God�s people through the study of Latter-Day scripture, the New Testament, history, and Archeological finds. But whether this proof convinces you or not, plead to God in honest prayer, to know if baptism was always practiced. He will always answer a sincere prayer.

Now to move on to more New Testament proof in order to show that baptism is necessary for one�s salvation we center on the baptism of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. A simple argument for the necessity of baptism could be summed up in that Jesus Christ was baptized, so why should we not be baptized? This should be proof enough for anyone who follows Christ, since He even said that He was our example:

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." (John 13:15)

Similarly Peter stated:

�For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps� (1 Peter 2:21)

So we should do as Peter said, �follow [Christ�s] steps�. Thus to follow in Christ�s footsteps, it is logical that we should be baptized as was He. We find in the New Testament the details of Christ�s baptism:

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:13-17)

Aside from this scripture providing evidence of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being 3 distinct and separate beings (see my article on the The Trinity), I ask why was Jesus Christ baptized? Wasn�t He perfect and without sin, as John the Baptist noted. Well Jesus Christ answered John, and told him why He needed to be baptized, yet many people today still don�t understand His answer, which was �fulfil all righteousness�. In other words Jesus said He had to be baptized in order to fulfill all that which is right, or all that which is commanded of God. That is it. All righteousness is just all that God commands. Since God commanded Jesus to be baptized, who will dare say that we, who are full of sin, do not need baptism to wash away our sins? Baptism is a commandment, thus it is required to enter heaven. Even Christ was under the same obligation as we, except He did it not to wash away His sins, but to provide us with an example to follow and to demonstrate His obedience to His Father. This agrees with the Book of Mormon which states:

"And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" (2 Nephi 31:5)

But for further proof, we have the literal words of Christ to Nicodemus explaining that baptism is necessary to enter into God�s presence:

"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 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. 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. 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? 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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:1-10)

First off, we notice that Jesus says that aside from being �born of water� or in other words, being baptized, He explains that we need to also be born of Spirit. This topic will be dealt with later in this discussion down below. Now, if Jesus told Nicodemus that we must ALL be �born of water� or �born again� or baptized, then why are there doubts among the Christian world? Why must we question the necessity of this doctrine? Going back to the point made earlier about baptism being practiced much before Christ, Jesus even tells Nicodemus that He should have known about this doctrine, especially considering that he was �a master of Israel� in verse 10. This again shows that the doctrine was not new, and that the Jews did in fact have knowledge of it. Aside from this, didn�t Christ even tell his apostles before His ascension to heaven:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)

There was no exception in His words above, He commanded that �all nations� be baptized. That�s it; nothing should be in question after studying Christ�s words on the subject.

A common misinterpretation of the words of Jesus found in John 3:5,6 is that Christ means that to be �born of water� is actually man�s physical birth from the mother�s womb, since we are in water within the womb. They support this claim by Jesus� words in verse 6, where He explains that �that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit�, so the first birth is the physical birth and the second birth is a spiritual birth. In this way they rid themselves of the idea of baptism to be essential. Crazy, huh? But why is this interpretation wrong? First off, Christ rarely speaks in such direct, physical words. Any one knows this because He always taught through parables, in which all His teachings represented something physical. We read in the Bible:

�All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.� (Matthew 13:34-35)

The above interpretation is seen to be incorrect through the Savior's use of symbolism in His parables: His people or followers are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), sinners are the lost sheep (Luke 15:4-7), new beginnings or a renewed person is a new cloth (Mark 2:21), Jesus Christ is the bread of life (John 6:31-38). So with Christ�s symbolism in mind, our physical birth is not what the Savior was talking about when He said we must be �born of water�. First because there is absolutely no symbolism in this interpretation as is found in most of His other teachings. Besides, who would really need to be told that they had to be physically born in order to enter into the kingdom of God? If we are here on earth, we don�t need to be told that we need to by physically born, because we�ve already done that. Christ came to teach us what we needed to do to enter the kingdom of heaven, and that�s exactly what He was doing here. It just seems a bit ironic that He would tell us that we were in need of something that we had already done. Strange, but some people really believe that interpretation. Another reason for why this interpretation is incorrect is all the direct references to baptism in water found in the New Testament: Matthew 3, 28:19; Mark 1, 16:16; Luke 3; John1, 3, 4:1-2; Acts 1:5, and throughout Acts; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 10:2, 15:29; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 6:2; and 1 Peter 3:21. This list is not complete (especially since it only includes direct references to baptisms an omits the symbolic ones), but intended to show that there must be some necessity to baptism or else why was there so much teaching concerning it? Why was even Jesus baptized? If we don�t need it then why do the scriptures teach it? Why does God teach it? Yet another reason for this interpretation to be incorrect is found with the aid of the baptism of the Spirit (or the Gift if the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands), found below.

But now we come to the topic of being saved by grace alone, thus baptism is not necessary, right? WRONG. We know that through Christ�s grace He will save those who do believe on Him, but that is not all. Many people like to simply pull one verse out of the Bible and just live by it with nothing else. They tend to just pick and choose those things which they agree with or seem to like, and then throw out everything else that the scriptures have to say concerning the subject. This is the case for those who claim that we are saved by God�s grace alone and that nothing else is needed than to just accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. This topic is covered in my article, "Faith vs. Works� .

Spirit Baptism

There are a few points here that are worthy of mention: First, water baptism comes AFTER repentance, thus it cleanses one of sin through the grace of God; Second, there are 2 types of baptism, one of water and one of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit as Jesus mentioned in John 3:5); and last, John the Baptist did not have the power or AUTHORITY to baptize with the Holy Ghost, thus someone else (Jesus Christ who at that time was the only one who could baptize with the Spirit) would baptize those people with the Holy Ghost (The topic of authority is not treated elsewhere). This scripture points out much error in today�s doctrines. For it clearly shows three of the four basic principles required to obtain salvation as detailed a bit further into this discussion. The only principle not mentioned in the above scripture citation is faith in Jesus Christ, that is to say to believe in Him, to believe that He is the Son of God, and to know that through His sacrifice on the cross and in Gethsemane He has saved us from our sins and without Him we would all be lost (John 3:16, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31). Thus He became our Savior and Redeemer. These are the principles which Jesus Christ has taught man to do in order to return to our Heavenly Father�s presence, and it is clearly shown throughout the Bible. We must first have faith in Jesus Christ so that we may then repent and forsake all of our sins; next we must be baptized (in water) for the remission of sins and given the Gift of the Holy Ghost (baptism with the Holy Ghost). This is what we must do just to enter into the kingdom of God.

Now that we know that there are two different types of baptisms which are clearly taught in the Bible, we need to attempt to define each and find their different purposes. Let us begin by scrutinizing water baptism, that baptism which many Christians do perform and accept as part of their doctrine. As shown above, water baptism must have clearly been practiced in Old Testament times or else John the Baptist would have really looked as if he were trying to begin an entirely new faith and the Jewish priests would have clearly accused him accordingly. But as seen in John 1:24-25 and Luke 20:1-8, this was not the case, as the words of the Pharisees imply that they understood the ordinance of baptism. Now, understanding that baptism has ALWAYS been an essential ordinance, we find its meaning in the New Testament:

"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." (Romans 6:3-6)

That is it. As many Christians do understand, baptism is our covenant with God to crucify �our old man� thus we promise to turn away from our sins. We are lowered into the water to symbolize being �buried with [Jesus Christ]� and we are raised out of the water to symbolize being �resurrect[ed]� with Christ. In this way, we have buried our old ways, our old life, and our old sins, and we are raised up with a new beginning and a new life in Christ. This is a promise we have made to God, to turn and forsake our sins, and to follow His Son�s example.

Next we turn to the more misunderstood baptism, baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the Gift of the Holy Ghost. As noted earlier in Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist did not have the authority to baptize with the Holy Ghost. He explained that those people which he had baptized with water would later be baptized with the Holy Ghost by Jesus Christ. (By the way this also disproves the faulty theory of being �born of water� as being a literal, physical birth since Matthew 3:11 is in complete harmony with Christ�s words in John 3:5. Mainly in that being baptized with water is the same as being �born of water� and being baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same as being �born of the Spirit.� John correctly notes the importance and necessity of both baptisms. Another way to disprove the faulty theory can be found below.) First we begin with the baptism of Jesus Christ which is detailed clearly in Matthew 3:13-17 (can be found above). From this and the other 3 Gospels (Mark, Luke, and John) we note that Jesus received the Holy Ghost after He was baptized since �straightway coming up out of the water� the Spirit like a dove descend[ed] upon him� (Mark 1:10). So again, to follow in Christ�s footsteps we should also receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. For those of you who think that this Gift or baptism of the Spirit can be wrought through prayer or through some means by which it can be administered to oneself, I provide Biblical proof to show otherwise. First, remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that man must be baptized of water, as well as Spirit to enter into heaven (John 3:1-10) and that John the Baptist also taught of the baptism with the Spirit. So now we read:

"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:39)

So we see that Jesus had not yet given anyone the gift of the Holy Ghost, or baptism with the Spirit. Here we are told that Christ would not give man this Gift until He was �glorified�, in other words, resurrected in glory, which also shows that this Gift is not automatic with water baptism. This idea is also supported in John 16:7. We also read that Christ gave this gift only to His apostles after His resurrection:

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14:17)

So we find that Christ gave His apostles the Gift of the Holy Ghost after He was resurrected (Day of Pentecost). He did not give it to the world as He stated since the world �seeth him not, neither knoweth him�. So they were the only people whom Jesus �baptize[d]� with the Holy Ghost� as John said in Matthew 3:11. Thus even they did not receive it automatically through their water baptism, nor did they receive it through their own power, but rather, it was given to them by Jesus Christ, who alone had the authority to do so at that time. The New Testament tells us how the Gift of the Holy Ghost was given to the apostles as follows:

"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:2-3)

Here we are told that Jesus Christ dwelled with the apostles after His resurrection for forty days instructing them with those things they needed to preach His gospel. The important thing to note is that Jesus was with His apostles and instructed them only and no one else. He then told His apostles:

"For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts 1:5)

As noted earlier, Christ would give only His apostles the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or baptism with the Holy Ghost, not the entire world. (By the way, this also disproves the faulty theory of being �born of water� as being a literal, physical birth since it is in complete harmony with Christ�s words in John 3:5. Mainly in that being baptized with water is the same as being �born of water� and being baptized with the Holy Ghost is the same as being �born of the Spirit.� Jesus now reminds His apostles of the importance and necessity of both baptisms.) Here He told them that they would soon receive that Gift. The Gift of the Holy Ghost would finally be received on the Day of Pentecost, after Christ ascended to heaven, described as follows:

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And ,they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." (Acts 2:1-5)

The question here is: who exactly was baptized by the Holy Ghost, or given the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Was everyone in the room given the Gift? Or only the apostles? We are told that �they were all filled with the Holy Ghost�, but who is all? Verse 5 explains that �devout� Jewish men were there among the apostles when the Holy Ghost was conferred. But we know that these men did not receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost because they mocked and claimed that those who had received the Gift were drunk (Acts 2:13). Peter then stood up and defended all they who had received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by explaining that these things which occurred had been prophesied and were caused by the Spirit of God (Acts 2:14-36). Then we read:

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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 2:37-38)

Here is the answer: they, the �devout� Jewish men from all nations, asked �Peter and� the rest of the apostles� what they needed to do to receive what they had received. That is, they wanted to know what they had to do in order to receive salvation and to be given the Gift of the Holy Ghost as did the apostles. Thus only the apostles of Jesus Christ were baptized with the Holy Ghost on that Day of Pentecost, and they instructed the rest of those who witnessed the scene that day to be baptized of water, and then they would receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands later.

Later in the New Testament we note that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was always given by the laying on of hands by those who had the authority to do so, which was now the apostles. The apostles had received this authority from Jesus Christ himself, and now that they possessed the Gift of the Holy Ghost, they were then able to give that Gift to others. We read:

"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:14-17)

So we see above that the apostles had to lay their hands on someone and confer to them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The apostles did not just simply pray that the Holy Ghost would come upon certain people, but they also had to lay their hands upon the people to confer the Gift. We also note that the baptism of water did not automatically give anyone the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and they could not yet receive the Gift because �only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus�. Thus, in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, one must first be baptized of water, as also implied by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11.

Now we come to the question that many have come to inquire about, �If we can only receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands from those with the authority to do so, then that must mean that someone cannot ever be manifested the power of the Holy Ghost without having first received the Gift through the laying on of hands.� This however we know cannot be true. Anyone can feel the power of the Spirit, or can be led to make a decision because of the influence of the Spirit without having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. If this were not true, than how would it be possible for someone to be spiritually converted to the truth, since new converts have obviously never heard the truth of Christ�s Gospel before. They most certainly have never had the Gift of the Holy Ghost conferred upon them, thus the reasoning that they could not be led by the Spirit must be incorrect, since it would mean that they could never know with surety what the True Gospel really is. This concept is supported by these words:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16:13)

So, the Holy Ghost or Spirit is the answer to how we can receive all truth, since �he will guide [us] to all truth�. To know without a doubt that something is true, one must plead to God in sincere prayer in order to receive that knowledge from the Holy Ghost. Thus the Spirit is the only way to receive any truth, since He is the Spirit of truth (1 John 5:6, John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13). Curiously, the Book of Mormon also displays this concept:

�And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.� (Moroni 10:5)

Well, why then should we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost conferred upon us if we have can have communication with Him without the laying on of hands? First of all, it�s required because Jesus said so (John 3:1-10). Secondly, to receive the GIFT of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands means that one, after having received the GIFT, now has the right and privilege to be guided by the Spirit CONTINUALLY for the rest of his/her life on the condition that he/she is living worthily of the Spirit�s presence. Without the actual GIFT of the Holy Ghost, we have no such privilege. We can be lost daily, and may never feel His influence if we are insincere. The Holy Ghost will only influence someone who does not have the Gift if that person is sincerely looking for the truth. If not, then that person has no right to receive manifestations of the Holy Ghost. This is why it is so important to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and to live worthily of having His presence with us always, so that we may be guided continually.

Now that the topic of being �born of the Spirit� has been handled, it seems that one last objection some may have is the idea that John�s baptism is not the same as baptisms performed by the apostles or even today. This idea is also a strange one. These people believe and teach that John baptized �unto repentance� (Matthew 3:11) and claim that today�s baptism is not performed with the same objective, yet this idea cannot be supported Biblically. They note that the apostles of Christ baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and purport that this is not the same as being baptized �unto repentance�. But why is this a problem for them? The wording is different but the underlying meaning is the same. Baptism is like a sealing of one�s repentance. Both John�s baptism and the apostle baptism did the same thing, that is they sealed or confirmed one�s repentance. We read:

�Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:� (Matthew 3:5-6)

So as described above, before anyone was baptized by John the Baptist, they first confessed their sins, or rather they had to first �bring forth fruits meet for repentance�. So what happens after someone sincerely repents and confesses their sins? Logically, God forgives them, or similarly, they receive a remission of their sins. Thus John�s baptism was identical to the apostles baptism which was for a remission of sins also. Another thing to note is that the Bible itself make no distinction between these baptisms as seen here:

"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)� (John 4:1-2)

Here we see that John the Baptist�s baptism were seen as equal with the apostles baptism, the only thing that was noted here was that many more people followed Jesus Christ than did John. But this should be so since John the Baptist was he who was to prepare the way for the Lord, not the Lord himself.

But wait, John the Baptist�s baptism was not equal to the apostles baptism as shown in Acts:

�And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.� (Acts 19:1-6)

It may seem that this is the case at first glance, but a more detailed reading will show that this interpretation cannot be assumed. First did John the Baptist actually baptize these disciples? It can be seen that the answer to this question is NO. Why not? Because these men said that they were baptized �unto John�s Baptism�, not that John baptized them. In other words these men were baptized in a manner similar to John�s baptism but not by John the Baptist himself. If John had indeed baptized them wouldn�t you think they would have said he did? If this is not enough proof to show that John the Baptist did not baptize them then let us recall what John the Baptist clearly taught about the Holy Ghost. In Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:26-34 we find what exactly John taught about the Holy Ghost, namely:

�I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:� (Matthew 3:11)

John the Baptist clearly did teach concerning the Holy Ghost, even all of our 4 gospels contain evidence showing that he did. Many things in the 4 gospels do not agree. Such inconsistencies are the wording of the title above Christ�s head on the cross, the number of angels in the tomb after Christ�s resurrection, the order of events after the resurrection, the order of events in satan�s tempting of Christ, and more. But on this subject, nothing is more certain. John the Baptist baptized with water, and he clearly taught that someone greater than he (Jesus Christ) would baptize with the Holy Ghost. The teaching is there in all 4 gospels, none can deny it. So we know that John the Baptist clearly taught ALL His followers concerning the Holy Ghost. Thus we can assume that these men at the beginning of Acts 19 were clearly not baptized by John the Baptist or else they would have heard of the Holy Ghost. So Paul baptized them again and �laid his hands upon them� to give them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So they were re-baptized not because John�s baptism was useless, but rather because they were originally baptized by someone who had did not have the authority to baptize (Authority). This is clearly the case because someone who has been given authority by God to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ will definitely be sure that the doctrine of the Holy Ghost is understood by all those who wish to be baptized. This then shows the importance of authority and priesthood, since not just anyone can simply get up and baptize in the name of Jesus Christ without having authority because those baptism will viewed as invalid before God, no matter how sincere the person doing the baptism is. If I am completely wrong, then please let me know how so, and clearly tell me why God would have John perform a useless baptism in which all his followers would later be re-baptized anyways. I think this should more than definitely suffice.

In closing, Baptism is essential. Anyone who teaches otherwise will be held accountable before God. That alone would change my mind on the subject. I would not like to be standing in front of God explaining why I led so many astray from His teachings found in scripture. Besides, Jesus Christ was baptized, so no one can be completely sure that baptism is useless, and as was shown above, baptism is taught throughout the New Testament. We read in the Bible:

�He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.� (Mark 16:16)

Many people like to focus on the last half of this verse and just say, �well I will be damned only for not believing� but they fail to take heed to the entire verse, which shows that we must believe AND BE BAPTIZED in order to be saved. Don�t be one of those that likes to pick and choose parts of scripture as true, take all of scripture and practice ALL that it teaches. Why go through life just barely making it? Why gamble with your salvation? Believe and be baptized in order to be saved, just as it says in Mark16:16. Don�t be like the Pharisees and lawyers who �rejected the counsel of God�, [and were] not baptized� (Luke 7:30). But please make sure you are baptized by someone with authority to do so (Authority). Search out the LDS missionaries (they do have the authority), or get more info at the official site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.