Baptism is one of the most hotly debated issues when it comes to the requirements God sets forth for salvation. Churches have been split, denominations have arisen, and Christians have lost sleep over this subject, which is perhaps one of the hottest issues on the Christian playing-field today. There are three main views on baptism’s role in salvation and/or the life of a Christian. Each of these three views will be presented.
But first, “Why is there such division among Christians regarding the role baptism plays in salvation and/or the life of a Christian?” The view of salvation as needed for salvation was believed nearly unanimously by Christians for 1500 years, since the birth of Christianity. Famous theologians such as Martin Luther and Justin Martyr believed baptism was needed for salvation, and they believed this because they thought the scriptures clearly taught this, and they believed that their predecessors (including the Apostles) believed it (the one exception to this role, they believed, were martyrs). The divisions began in the years of 1523 to 1525, when a Swiss reformer and contemporary of Martin Luther—Huldreich Zwingli—denied any connection of salvation with baptism, stating that baptism is nearly the “covenant sign” of the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the covenant sign of the Old Covenant. This view has been adopted by nearly all non-Lutheran protestants; thus, the view that baptism is needed for salvation is not a new view but the old view; the new view is the view that baptism is not essential for salvation. Zwingli’s view flowed out of an interpretation of John 3.5 and Mark 1.8, where Christ speaks of water and Spirit baptism. Zwingli separated “water” and “Spirit” baptism into two separate baptisms, stating that one is saved by the “Spirit” baptism that takes place when one puts his or her faith in Christ, and baptism, then, becomes an outward sign of the grace that has been experienced within the sinner.
The First View: Baptism Not Necessary For Salvation
The view that baptism is not necessary for salvation, and that its role in the life of a Christian is not pertinent to salvation, is the most common view in the Western world. According to this view, baptism is an “outward demonstration of an inward grace.” Proponents of this view believe that one experiences salvation and regeneration of the Holy Spirit when he or she comes to God in faith and repentance. This grace bestowed upon the person is demonstrated publicly and symbolically in baptism. It is, in a sense, the “covenant sign” of the New Covenant, whereas circumcision was the covenant sign of the Old Covenant. Baptism, then, is simply an act of obedience, as the scriptures clearly tell us to be baptized. The argument for this view is as follows…
Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6.3-4, according to the proponents of this view, should be taken as illustrative of what has happened to those who have come to faith in Christ. The action of baptism is purely symbolic: going under the water symbolizes a Christian’s being buried with Christ, and coming out of the water symbolizes a Christian’s resurrection with Christ.
The major argument against baptism being necessary for salvation comes from the view that baptism is a human work, and that anything in addition to faith in Christ as being required for salvation is a works-based salvation. For one to say that baptism is needed for salvation is to say that Christ’s death was not sufficient enough to purchase our salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for the sins of humanity (Romans 5.8, 2 Corinthians 5.21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3.16, Acts 16.31, Ephesians 2.8-9). Baptism, then, is an important step of obedience that takes place after salvation, but it cannot be a requirement for salvation.
“What about the scriptures used by the proponents of the baptism-necessary-for-salvation viewpoint?” Proponents of this view acknowledge that there are some verses that seem to imply baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation, but a different interpretation of these verses is necessary since the scriptures clearly and plainly teach that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3.16, Ephesians 2.8-9, Titus 3.5). Scripture does not contradict scripture. Besides, if baptism is necessary for salvation, why would the Apostle Paul have said, “I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (1 Corinthians 1.14)? Why would he have said, “Christ did not sent me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Corinthians 1.17)? While in these passages he is arguing against divisions in the church caused by different baptizers, why would he use this language in his rhetoric if he viewed baptism as necessary for salvation? If he did view baptism as necessary for salvation, then in these verses, he is essentially saying, “I am thankful that I did not save any of you…” and “Christ did not send me to save…” Further, when Paul gives a detailed outline of what he considers the gospel (1 Corinthians 15.1-8), why does he neglect to mention baptism if it is essential for salvation? Indeed, if baptism is a requirement for salvation, how could any presentation of the gospel lack a mentioning of baptism?
If baptism is not required for salvation, why was it commanded by the apostles and early Christians? In ancient
The Second View: Baptist Necessary For Salvation
The view that baptism is necessary for salvation is most commonly held within those churches of the reformation, i.e. Independent Churches of Christ. According to this view, total-immersion baptism is essential for one’s salvation. While it is the blood of Christ that cleanses us of all sin, this view states that the blood of Christ is not applied to us until we “go under the water.” The argument of this view is as follows…
Throughout the New Testament, baptism is always connected with salvation. In a plain reading of the scriptures, baptism is viewed as a condition for salvation, just as it is with faith, repentance, and confession. Baptism serves as a “double-cure” needed for salvation. The “double-trouble” of humanity is this: humanity is guilty and under the penalty of hell, and humanity is depraved (spiritually sick and sinful). God’s solution is twofold: He removes the guilt and condemnation of sin via Jesus’ blood, and He gives humans the indwelling Holy Spirit to cure this spiritual sickness: the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews the sin-sick heart and breaks the grip of sin on the soul. The Holy Spirit’s work as seen in the New Testament scriptures are as following: through the Spirit, we experience a new birth, become new creation, are given a new life of connection with God, experience regeneration, experience renewal, and experience resurrection.
The question, then, is, “When does this ‘double-cure’ take place?” The answer the proponents of this view give is, “At baptism!” God bestows salvation upon the sinner at the occasion of baptism. An accurate interpretation of the Greek in Acts 2.38 reads, “Repent and be baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of your sins.” The Greek word connecting repentance and baptize in the verse above speaks of two equals being joined; thus repentance and baptism are held in equal status in the mind of the speaker, the Apostle Peter. Colossians 2.12 implies that in baptism the “double-cure” takes place. We are “buried with Christ” in baptism (see Romans 6.3-5); this means that we come into contact with Christ’s blood in baptism, and the blood then cleanses us of our guilt and condemnation. Colossians 2.12 continues to tell us that we are “raised with Christ” as we come out of the water, pertaining to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit given to us as we come out of the water. In Acts 22.16, baptism is linked with salvation, as “calling on His name” is a call for salvation (see Joel 2.32 and Acts 2.21). Titus 3.5 tells us that baptism brings about the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and renews us, and 1 Peter 3.19-21 (a favorite verse among the heralds of this view) reads: “[Noah] went and proclaimed God’s salvation to earlier generations who ended up in the prison of judgment because they wouldn’t listen. You know, even though God waited patiently all the days that Noah built his ship, only a few were saved then, eight to be exact—saved from the water by the water. The waters of baptism do that for you, not by washing away dirt from your skin but by presenting you through Jesus’ resurrection before God with a clear conscience.” (The Message, italics mine)
If this position on baptism is correct, why has God made baptism the time the “double-cure” takes place? The New Covenant has new elements, so a new framework for receiving the gift of salvation is necessary. The newness of the age requires a new, distinguishing element in receiving salvation. These new elements include a more complete revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the Trinity, the living presence of God in our daily lives, and the Holy Spirit in us. Also, baptism provides us assurance of our salvation: doubts and uncertainties plague us, so baptism serves as a concrete assurance that we have, indeed, experienced God’s grace. Since God has promised to save us in baptism, we bank on it (though if we use baptism as an excuse to do whatever we please, we are in condemnation, for baptism without the links of faith, repentance, and confession is as empty as experiencing confession without the three other conditions for salvation). Assurance of salvation, the proponents conclude, is only possible if baptism is tied to salvation.
The “enemies” of this view (most often those who view baptism as nonessential to salvation) bring up one very important key argument: “Baptism is a work of man, and therefore to claim that it is necessary to salvation is to hold to a works-based view of salvation.” Ephesians 2.8-9 clearly tells us that we are saved by faith, not by works. But what does “works” (as also seen in Romans 3.28 and Galatians 2.16) really mean? “Works” does not mean things done in the pattern of salvation (i.e. faith, repentance, confession, and baptism); rather, “works” refers to the person’s obeying of the law of God as revealed either in the Law of Moses or the general revelation of God’s law as seen in the universe (i.e. morality). “Faith” refers to anything the sinner does in obedience to what God has commanded in order to receive salvation. Engaging in the requirements for salvation is what the scriptures call “becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6.7) and “obeying the gospel” (Romans 10.16, 2 Thessalonians 1.8, 1 Peter 4.17). Faith, then, includes repentance, confession, and baptism! None of these are “works of the law,” since none are required of us simply because we are creatures God has made. Baptism, then, is not a “work of the law” as “works” are meant in such passages as Ephesians 2.8-9, Romans 3.20,28, Romans 4.4-5, Romans 11.6, and Galatians 2.16. Martin Luther held to this view, taking the “work” of baptism a step further: baptism is a work of God, not a work of man. A sinner embraces baptism in faith in the working of God in his heart (Colossians 2.12), trusting that in that moment God will forgive his sin and indwell him with His Holy Spirit.
If this view is true, a harrowing question must be asked: “What about those millions of Christians who have followed a false view of baptism, believing it to not be necessary for salvation?” First off, if someone is baptized, he or she will be saved whether or not he or she believes the saving act of God takes place in baptism. Correct doctrinal beliefs is not a prerequisite for salvation. “But what about those who have not been baptized because they have been taught that baptism is not necessary and thus optional?” It is very possible that God has made exceptions in His mercy, though we have no scriptural evidence of this. The best thing for a Christian to do is to be baptized A.S.A.P., even if he or she holds the baptism-not-necessary-for-salvation view or if he or she is still very confused with the whole matter. One must remember, too, that at the Great Judgment, God will judge people for how they lived in regards to what they knew. Thus if someone had no idea of baptism and its means for salvation, God could very well excuse them because they have an excuse for not undergoing baptism; that person may be cleared of guilt if he or she responded to what he or she knew (Rom 4.15).
The Third View: Baptist Necessary For The Holy Spirit But Not For Justification
The third view (and one not commonly held) is that baptism enables the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and the preceding sanctification, whereas faith and repentance bring about justification. While the second view says that there is no salvation outside baptism, this view says that salvation is available without baptism. While the first view says that baptism serves no definable purpose other than identifying with Christ in a public declaration, this view says that baptism does play a role in the life of a Christian: the Holy Spirit (perhaps the primary gift of the New Covenant) indwells the person at this time. However, salvation is available without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Faith, repentance, and confession are all that are truly needed, though baptism is definitely desired. This view has come into being through an exegetical approach to Romans 1-8; the argument (given briefly here) goes as follows:
The Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans for two primary purposes. The first purpose was to bring reconciliation between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Both were at odds with one another, and a division in the church at Rome had come into existence. Paul writes to bring them back together as a single, unified entity. He also writes to present basic doctrinal truths regarding salvation, since the Christians in Rome had no apostolic guidance; most of the Christians in Rome had become Christians throughout the rest of the Roman empire while on travels, bringing their Christian faith to their workplaces and homes in the capitol city. The first eight chapters deals extensively with salvation; chapters 9-11 deal with the question of the Jews’ place in the unfolding story of the gospel; and the following chapters take the theology Paul has presented and examines how it looks weaved into human life. Baptism’s role in salvation is dealt with in chapters 6-8.
In chapters 1-3, Paul makes it very clear that everyone—Jews and Gentiles (Gentiles are non-Jews) have the “double-trouble” problem: they are guilty and thus under penalty of hell, and they are sin-sick with the sin-disease. In chapters 4-5, the Apostle Paul then states that there is hope despite the apparent hopelessness: Christ! Through faith in Christ (true faith, remember, is tied to repentance, of which confession is an integral part), one is justified before God, i.e. made right. The guilt is taken away and the penalty of hell is removed. Thus the person has salvation. But there’s more: in chapters 6-8, Paul explores the role of baptism in a person’s life. It is in baptism that one is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, the primary gift of the New Covenant, spoken of by the prophet Joel (Joel 2.32). Through baptism, one is granted the Holy Spirit and all the benefits that come along with Him. This is justification and then some. Thus baptism plays a crucial role, but it is not necessary for salvation. Salvation—being made right with God—takes place only through faith in the Messiah.
Hot Topics Within The Baptismal Debate
Currently there are two subtopics that are under intense debate when it comes to baptism. The first is, “How should baptism be done?” and “Should babies be baptized?” This is a biblical approach to these two topics.
First, “How should baptism be done?” Throughout the many denominations of Christianity, baptism takes place in several different ways: entire immersion, sprinkling of water, daubing of water, pouring of water. The biblical definition of baptism taken from the original Greek of the New Testament is this: the momentary immersion of the body into a pool of water. Thus sprinkling or daubing or pouring do not count as baptism. The Greek word for baptize—baptizo—means “to dip, to immerse”; the Greek word for baptism—baptismo—means “immersion.” The Greek lexicon adds some other meanings as well to baptizo as used in the daily usage of the ancient Greeks: “dip,” “plunge,” “submerge,” “sink,” “go under,” and “drown.” Also, “drench,” “soak,” and “overwhelm.” It is quite clear, isn’t it, that baptism—when looked at in the original Greek—is to be done by total immersion? Also, the symbolism of baptism requires immersion (even those proponents of baptism-needed-for-salvation do not deny that there is symbolism to baptism): total immersion symbolizes the saving events of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection as well as the death, burial, and resurrection of the sinner who has become a member of Christ’s church (Romans 6.3-11, Colossians 2.12). Biblically, baptism is total immersion of the person in a body of water.
Second, “Should babies be baptized?” Many people and denominations baptize babies for two main reasons: to cure them of their guilt for sin and enslavement to sin (though, let it be stated, children are pure until they come to understand God’s Law and the significance of breaking it); and second, to show that they are Christians because their parents are Christians (identity with a religion via birth is a practice of the Old Testament, but not of the New). Biblically, there are many reasons why babies should not be baptized. First, children are pure until they understand God’s Law and the significance of breaking it (Rom 4.15, 7.7-11), so there is no penalty of death upon their heads from which they need to be cured from until they come to this realization; infants and little children cannot possibly hold this understanding; so those who baptize for the purpose of cleansing children of guilt are wasting their time. Second, as mentioned above, membership in God’s kingdom comes not by birth-right or heritage but by believing in Christ (John 1.12-13) and placing faith in Christ (Galatians 3.26). Third, there is no mention of infant baptism in all of the New Testament; baptism is always an act of adults or young adults (“What about entire households being baptized [Acts 11.4, 16.15,33, 18.8, 1 Corinthians 1.16]?” It is mere conjecture to believe that these household baptisms involved infants; it probably refers to those who heard the good news [Acts 10.44, 16.32], believed the good news [Acts 16.34, 18.8], and rejoiced at their salvation [Acts 16.34]—babies cannot hear and understand the gospel, cannot put their faith in Christ, and cannot rejoice at the good news of the gospel.) Fourth, baptism follows other actions that babies cannot undertake: hearing the gospel (Acts 18.8), believing the promises of the gospel (Mark 16.16), repenting of sin (Acts 2.38), and calling upon the name of YHWH for salvation (Acts 22.16). Fifth, baptism is a choice; babies and young children are baptized by force, not by choice, so, therefore, their baptism is illegitimate. Thus if a baby is baptize, he or she is merely dunked in, sprinkled with, or daubed upon with water; nothing of any spiritual significance has taken place.
No comments:
Post a Comment