Many studies are done among religious denominations like “The Roman Road to Salvation” that focuses on one passage to support their doctrine. Any denomination will do this in support of their teaching, and nearly all of them will claim that “their teaching” comes from the Bible alone. In the case of Romans 10, many will stand around the camp of verse 9 and pronounce salvation on the grounds of confessing Jesus Christ. After all, it reads that confession is made unto salvation. I trust that all who read this blog will honestly look at the evidence. We mishandle the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim. 2:14-16) when we isolate one passage from all other passages that address the same theme. We will address these four verses from Romans 10 as we pursue the value of the phrase, “unto salvation” or “unto the remission of sins.” Then, we will look at confession and baptism, the later of which many reject as having any role in salvation.
The Greek word is the preposition εἰς. It is interesting that there is great controversy over the meaning of this prepostion in its use in Acts 2:38, but not in Romans 10:9. Many will conclude that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus we will be saved. “That’s what the Bible says,” is the voice of confidence. Yet, the same preposition is found in Acts 2:38 that reads, “repent and be baptized everyone of you unto the remission of sins.” Baptism is never found as an option following salvation. It is always placed before salvation alongside “faith,” “confession,” or “repentance.” Jesus told the apostles who were commissioned to make disciples, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He did not say, “He that believes will be saved and such belief will cause one to be baptized as an outward sign of an inward grace.” Baptism is a burial with Christ into his death. It represents the putting away of the old self who has died, while resurrecting a new person (Romans 6). Romans 6:17 teaches that they were the servants of sin, but after obeying from the heart that form of teaching, had become servants of righteousness. According to what follows, it is after one’s obedience that they were made free from sin, not before (cf. Gal. 3:26-27).
So, if we can see that confession is necessary “for salvation”, why can’t we see that baptism is necessary “for the remission of sins?” Young’s Literal Translation has ‘to’ the remission of sins in this place. Of course, I should clarify the real issue, here. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of claiming the necessity of confession based on Romans 10:9 while rejecting the necessity of baptism by ignoring Acts 2:38. The controversy over the preposition “εἰς” is whether it can be viewed as causative. In other words, is salvation and remission of sins caused by confession and baptism or is it coincidental? Do they coincide and coexist together or does one follow the other in terms of progression? Using the preferred text among a vast majority in my area (the KJV), the translations of the preposition are “against” (25), “among” (16), “at” (20), “for” (91), “in” (131, “into (571), “that” (30), “on” (57), “to” (282), “toward” (32), “unto” (208), “upon” (25), and a few other rarer translations. The words “into,” “to,” and “unto” are used most of the time. Just remember that with reference to salvation or the remission of sins (which is what salvation offers), confession, repentance and baptism are involved. They stand or fall together Salvation is not a smorgasbord cafeteria-style choice for the sinner. God does the saving, and the conditions are based on his terms, not the preferences of the sinner.
In Matthew 26:28, Jesus takes a cup, gives thanks for it, and explains, “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Peter responds to the question concerning what must be done, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” A simple question is in order here. Was the shedding of Jesus’ blood coincidental and coexisted with the remission of sins or was it causative. I know of no one who would disagree that Jesus shed his blood in order to procure the remission of sins. It was causative. Yet, the same preposition and exact phrase is repeated in Acts 2:38. At least three problems are created by refusing to give the same interpretation to Acts 2:38. First, you must place “repentance” and “confession” beside it as having nothing to do with being saved. Second, you must add the “shedding of Christ’s blood” to the list of things that coincide or coexist with the remission of sins. Did Jesus shed his blood at the same time human redemption was satisfied (redemption already occurred with or without the blood)? Or, was the shedding of His blood the means by which human redemption was satisfied (the direct cause)? Third, if you choose the last interpretation, the rejection of which would compound your problems and place you in conflict with the vast majority of New Testament texts, by what logic could you change its use and meaning in Acts 2:38? We are neither baptized for sins already remitted nor did Jesus die for sins already remitted. If He did not die for sins already forgiven but died in order to be forgiven, then, we are not baptized for sins already forgiven but in order to be forgiven. The first is the means by which forgiveness is received (God’s part). The second is the condition on which salvation is granted (man’s part).
Just remember, biblical baptism is an act of faith, not law. While it is true that many will turn God’s grace into a meritorious act of law, do not overreact and reject the terms assigned by the Lord, bringing upon yourself condemnation for rejecting God’s terms of pardon.
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth Rom. 1:16.