RightCyberUp HOME search comment
2003 Preface
With the changes that have happened in the International Churches of Christ (ICC) in the last year, it is a good time to look again at the ICC's baptism doctrine.
Members and leaders is some ICC churches are trying to understand the exclusivism and legalism of their past. Other ICC churches are not doing adequate re-examination, and many members are leaving their congregations (or considering leaving), while wondering about alternatives to the ICC and its teachings. Some even question whether there are valid alternatives to ICC doctrine. For all these reasons, it is important to look at baptism.
This article explores in depth the subject of baptism as it relates to Christian conversion (the act of becoming a Christian). The hope obviously is that some readers will change their mind about conversion doctrine -- but more importantly, that more will change their heart toward beliefs and practices other than their own.
[Note: To question the role of baptism is not to dispute its importance. The goal here isn't to persuade Christians never to baptized; but rather to discern what baptism's importance is so that it can become a source of harmony rather than division between people.]
The International Churches of Christ (ICC) inherited the doctrine of adult baptism for the forgiveness of sins from mainstream Churches of Christ, which in turn arose out of the American Restoration Movement of the 1800s.
If the ICC didn’t invent the doctrine of salvation through baptism (called “baptismal regeneration” by its critics), then why should we tackle this contentious issue -- an issue over which which Christians have disagreed for centuries? We can’t ignore the issue of baptism when discussing the ICC for at least a few reasons:
1. Baptism doctrine is central to ICC exclusivity claims. Since much of the organization’s claim to being "special" rests on its interpretation of baptism, we must look at this central doctrine. If the ICC’s baptism doctrine seems less sound on closer inspection, then the ICC’s claim to being the “one true church” is also unsound.
2. Baptism doctrine drastically affects the worldview of current ICC members. Many members become frustrated by the ICC's dynamics, but then say, "where else can I go?" Some dissatisfied members may remain in the ICC just because they don’t feel there are any other groups that share their “biblical” view of baptism. By considering less restrictive (but theologically valid) doctrines, these people can for the first time find the psychological freedom to consider leaving the ICC.
3. Baptism can become not only a theological issue, but a recovery issue for former ICC members. Former members who have rejected other ICC doctrines or practices may still feel "stuck" regarding the ICC’s baptism teachings. They may continue to doubt the salvation of anyone outside the ICC and to mistrust Christian fellowship offered by non-ICC members -- largely over the issue of baptism. They may have difficulty reconciling their family’s religious beliefs with their own. Former members may bounce around, never finding a church they are happy with, in part because they can't find one that shares the ICC's view of baptism. (Or perhaps they discover that mainline Churches of Christ have similar baptism techings, but prefer not to worship there for one reason or another). These situations can actually deprive individuals of the "freedom of choice" to choose Christianity after leaving the movement, or feed nagging doubts that maybe the ICC was right, after all.
Now that we've established the importance of these issues, let us proceed.
“What must I do to be saved?”(Acts 16:30)
"What must I do to be saved?" is one of the most important questions a person could ask about the Christian faith. If Christian “salvation” can be achieved through the righteousness of Christ, then how does a person obtain that salvation?
There are dozens of verses that discuss belief, baptism, repentance and/or salvation, but there is only one New Testament verse where the question is literally asked: “What must I do to be saved?” (1) – Acts 16:30. This makes Acts 16:30 an excellent place to start. Let us begin by reading this passage in context:
“The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted, ‘Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!’
“The jailer called for the lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’
“They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God – he and his whole family.” (Acts 16: 27-34)
There is much in this rich passage. In fact, regardless of a person’s position on Christian baptism and salvation, he or she may find something in these verses that seems to support his or her own position! The person who believes baptism is necessary for salvation can point out how each person was baptized immediately within the hour, with apparent urgency. The person who believes in adult baptism can point out that the jailer was an adult, while the person who believes in child or infant baptism can raise the possibility that children or even infants in the jailers “family” were baptized.
The passage is also remarkable for what it does not say. It doesn’t mention the purpose of baptism, the mode of baptism, it doesn’t specify the moment when the converts attained salvation, or the “age of accountability” (2) of any children the jailer may have had.
But the passage in Acts 16 does leave us with at least three unmistakable points:
You may want to think back to this example of conversion as you read through the different issues in this article.
A place to start: “necessity” and “sufficiency”
To shed light on the issue of baptism and salvation, it is crucial to introduce two governing terms to our discussion: “necessity” and “sufficiency”. Something that is “necessary” is required – it is essential, indispensable. On the other hand, something that is “sufficient” is adequate – it meets all requirements on its own, with nothing more needed. These terms can bring much clarity to our discussion of baptism when we consider what is scripturally necessary for salvation, and what is scripturally sufficient for salvation.
Actually, the passage we read from Acts 16 has already answered two important questions about belief, baptism and salvation (see Figure 1). From Acts 16, it seems that belief is necessary for salvation: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31). And if belief is necessary, then baptism cannot be sufficient.
Figure 1: Answers from Acts 16: 27-34
Is it necessary for salvation? Is it sufficient for salvation? belief YES ? baptism ? NO
Moving forward, then, the two crucial questions remaining about belief, baptism and salvation are:
Notice that answering either of these questions will also conclusively answer the other. If belief is sufficient, then baptism can’t be necessary. On the other hand, if baptism is necessary, then belief can’t be sufficient. You'll want to use these concepts of necessity and sufficiency later when we cover specific Bible verses.
What about the “composite approach?”
Before we continue to answer these questions, let’s note that some readers may be tempted to begin with something we could call the composite approach. The composite approach relies on sifting through the New Testament for all conversion stories and conditions for salvation that appear to be applied to individuals, and then identifying each of these conditions as a separate step in a composite “plan of salvation.” One result of this composite approach is the “five-step plan” of salvation traditionally taught in mainline Churches of Christ: 1. hear the Word, 2. believe, 3. repent, 4. confess, 5. be baptized.
But there are some major drawbacks with using this composite approach to create conversion doctrine:
a.) The entire Bible was not used by the First Century church, because the New Testament, by most estimates, was not canonized until at least the Second Century. By example, the church in Corinth, might have possessed only one or two of the Gospels, in addition to the Corinthian letters (I and II Corinthians). The early church did not have the option of using the composite approach because they likely did not have the complete New Testament as we have it today. One would hope that each of the gospels or epistles, in itself, would supply the reader with an understanding of what it takes to be “saved”.
b.) There is the danger of using "command by example." For instance, one might take the story of the Rich Young Ruler, who asked Jesus, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18) Jesus answered him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Luke 18:22). One could thus mistakenly add "selling all your belongings" as a requirement of salvation, using the composite approach. This would errantly make a command (universal requirement) out of an example (specific case).
In the same way, there may be instances where repentance or confession or some other element accompanies a conversion story. But it is not sound to make such elements a universal command from an example.
c.) There is the danger of taking figurative verses literally. A great example of this would be I Timothy 2:15, which says "...women will be saved through childbearing." Using the composite technique indiscriminately, we could even come up with a “six-step plan of salvation” for women only:
1. hear, 2. believe, 3. repent, 4. confess, 5. get baptized, 6. bear children
Obviously, "women will be saved through childbearing" is best interpreted symbolically rather than literally. The “six-step plan” of salvation above illustrates that the composite approach can lead to flawed conclusions. Let us discard it, then, and instead proceed by seeking answers to our two questions about baptism and salvation...
Is belief sufficient for salvation?
To answer the question, “Is belief sufficient for salvation?” we should obviously first look to scriptures mentioning belief and salvation to see what the scriptural connection is. (3)
The person who wants to short-circuit this process by jumping straight to passages about baptism runs the risk of eisegesis – “the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.”(4) This is also known as "prooftexting." If one considers only passages about baptism, it’s predictable that he or she will come to conclusions that involve baptism. We need to loook at two sets of scriptures to fairly consider the two questions before us.
Here are several scriptures (from at least three New Testament authors) about the role of belief in the salvation process -- read each of them and consider their relevance to the question, "is belief sufficient for salvation?"
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because of God's one and only Son." John 3:18
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my words and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40
"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:47
“All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:43
“Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." Acts 13:38-39
"He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." Acts16:30-31
"This righteousness from God comes through faith to all who believe." Romans 3:22
“But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.” Galatians 3:22
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. . ." I John 5:1
All of these verses point to the sufficiency of belief for salvation. In addition, we could use numerous additional verses that substitute the word “faith” for “belief.”
Note: “Belief” in the above passages is viewed to mean more than mere intellectual assent. In fact, the English word "believe" has many degrees of depth, according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary:
believe:
1a. to have a firm religious faith
1b. to accept trustfully and on faith
2. to have a firm conviction as to the reality or goodness of something (5)
Summary: belief verses
Passages about “belief” confirm that belief is necessary for salvation. They also seem to show that belief – true belief – is sufficient. And if belief is sufficient for salvation, then baptism could not be necessary. But before drawing this conclusion, we must consider some scriptures about baptism.
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
To more completely answer the question, “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” we must of course consider passages about baptism.
The following verses have been suggested as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation, that baptism forgives sins, or that baptism is the actual point of salvation for a convert.
Figure 2: Baptism Verses -- Overview
| Verse(s) | Contextual topic of verse(s) | Says baptism is necessary for salvation? | Says Baptism forgives sins? | Says Baptism is the point of salvation? |
| Matthew 28:18-20 | instructions to Apostles | see (a.) | No | No |
| Mark 16:16 | instructions to Apostles | see (b.) | No | No |
| John 3:5 | kingdom of God | see (c.) | No | No |
| Acts 2:38 | instructions to Jews | No | see (d.) | No |
| Acts 22:16 | instructions to Paul | No | No | see (e.) |
| Romans 6:3-7 | perpetual sin | No | see (f.) | No |
| Galatians 3:26-29 | inclusiveness, unity | No | No | see (g.) |
| Colossians 2:11-12 | circumcision analogy | No | see (h.) | No |
| I Peter 3:21 | Noah flood like baptism | No | No | see (i.) |
Below is a discussion of each of these Bible passages about bapstism.
(a.) Matthew: 28:18-20
“Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 asks the apostles to baptize the people of the world (nations), but he does not state what the purpose of baptism is. The role of baptism in salvation, forgiveness or conversion is not delineated in this passage.
Although the Great Commission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their followers, this alone does not allow us to conclude that the apostles baptized for the purpose of salvation.
(b.) Mark 16:15-16
“He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
[note: Mark 16:9-20 is missing from many early Bible manuscripts]
Mark 16:16 is one of only two passages that includes the word “salvation,” in any of its forms, side by side with “baptism” (the other is I Peter 3:21 which we'll address later). Mark 16:16 has thus been suggested as “proof” that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. However, this is not logically the case.
Consider that there are four total scenarios that can be inferred from Mark 16:16, allowing us to put people into four logical groups (see Figure 3, below). Mark 16:16 says “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (that's Group 1). It also says people who don't believe will not be saved (Groups 2 & 3). But Mark 16:16 says nothing about people who believe but are not baptized (Group 4).
Figure 3: Scenarios in Mark 16:16
Group # scenario result Group 1 believes + is baptized Saved Group 2 does not believe + is baptized not saved Group 3 does not believe + is not baptized not saved Group 4 believes + is not baptized ???
Therefore, it is logically unsound to declare from Mark 16:16 that baptism is necessary for salvation. As a side note, some of the most reliable ancient manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20 at all, as many study Bibles will note.
(c.) John 3:3-6
“In reply Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked, ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.’”
Baptismal regenerationists have assumed that when Jesus says "water" in this passage he is referring to "baptism," and that therefore John 3 supports baptism as a requirement for salvation. But we shouldn’t automatically assume that water = baptism: there are 68 NIV New Testament references to "water", and most are not speaking of baptismal "water."
If water in John 3:5 doesn’t mean baptism, then what else could it mean? Some believe that the "water & Spirit" in verse 5 is attempting to draw a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual person. In fact, the very next verse (John 3:6) says "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit." Since Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant by being "born again" (vs. 4) but was thinking only of physical “birth”, this would have been a very appropriate metaphor to help him understand.
Notice that in the very next chapter of John, Jesus promises the Samaritan woman at the well "living water" (John 4:7-26), and no baptism of the Samaritan woman is mentioned (also, John 4:2 says that Jesus wasn’t baptizing). Like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman is confused because she doesn't realize Jesus was talking about water metaphorically.
Finally, if we did assume that John 3: 3-6 supports the necessity of baptism for salvation, then this argument would become inconsistent with Jesus’ words to Nicodemus later in the same chapter: “…whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then everyone who “believes” in him would not receive eternal life, but only those who were also baptized.
(d.) Acts 2: 37-38
“’Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.’ When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for [Greek: eis] the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit’”
Before even getting to the topic of baptism in verse Acts 2: 38, we must consider the preceding context in Acts 2: Peter was addressing a multi-national crowd of Jews (vs. 5) gathered for the festival of Pentecost (vs. 1). Peter explained that the Jews in Jerusalem – with help from the Romans – had killed Jesus, the messiah (vs. 22-37). It is in this context that the people asked the apostles “what shall we do?” (Note that they didn’t literally ask, “What shall we do to be saved?”
In this context, does Acts 2:38 really say that baptism is for the purpose of forgiving sins? A key to this passage is the highly flexible Greek preposition eis, translated “for” in the NIV translation of Acts 2:38, but translated to many other English words throughout the rest of the New Testament (see Figure 12).
Figure 4: Translations of eis in the New International Version
(in descending order of frequency, multiple-word translations not included)
English word frequency to 467 into 249 into 165 for 143 on 48 at 37 as 26 against 17 among 12 so that 11 of 6 with 6 about 5 before 5 until 5 for purpose 4 leads to 4 toward 4 brought 3 leading to 3 down upon 2 on to 2 over 2 that 2 through 2 to bring 2 to do 2 29 other words 1
source: The NIV Exhaustive Concordance, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.
With so many meanings for eis, it is clear that Acts 2:38 does not necessarily mean that baptism is “[for the purpose of] the forgiveness of sins.” Let’s consider one parallel use of eis:
“I baptize you with water for [eis] repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry...” Matthew 3:11
Using this verse for comparison to Acts 2 :38, Charles Leiter writes:
“Baptism in the name of Christ ‘for’ the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) no more means that baptism effects forgiveness than that John’s baptism in water ‘for’ repentance (Mt 3:11) caused those who were baptized to repent…John’s baptism was rather a baptism that signified repentance on the part of those baptized.”
Using Leiter’s argument, one could speculate that in Acts 2:38 baptism is actually a result of forgiveness rather than a precondition for it. For example, if someone says, “I was dunked for stealing Bill’s towel,” it does not mean he or she was dunked for the purpose of stealing Bill’s towel, but rather as a result of it.
E. Calvin Beisner goes further, saying that the grammar of Acts 2:38 identifiesrepentance as being “for” the forgiveness of sins:
A careful study of the Greek grammar at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):
You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.
This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized."(6)
Certainly, it can’t be proven from Acts 2:38 alone that baptism forgives sins, considering the highly variable meaning of eis. Acts 2:38 must be interpreted not just by the local context of the surrounding verses, but also the global context of the Bible as a whole -- which will mean considering additional passages.
(e.) Acts 22:16
“’And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’”
Contextually, Acts 22:16 is part of the conversion story of Paul. The verse doesn’t say that baptism is the point of salvation. However, the verse has been used by some to support baptism as a precondition for the forgiveness of sins.
The problem with this, according to Beisner, is that forgiveness is linked with “calling”:
First, a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized.
Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather
"be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord…
It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration. But again, this is only one way to understand it… Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality.(7)
Acts 22:16 does not prove that baptism is a precondition for the forgiveness of sins. If Paul -- who is telling his own converison story in Acts 22 -- was trying to equate baptism with salvation, then his words elsewhere are inconsistent, such as in I Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says "...Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." Although Paul had baptized some, he makes a distinction between the gospel and baptism.
(f.) Romans 6:1-4
“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
In context, this passage is about sin, and why it should be avoided. Because of the vivid imagery Paul uses in reference to baptism, many have interpreted the passage to mean that baptism actually forgives sins through supernatural contact with the death, burial & resurrection with Christ.
First, Romans never states that baptism is an actual participation in death/burial/resurrection (although a reader might infer this to be so). As Beisner asks, will those who believe it is an actual participation also believe that verse 6 speaks of an actual crucifixion with Christ, instead of a symbolic one?(8)
Secondly, Paul has both precedent, and motive for speaking of baptism symbolically. On the issue of precedent, consider a parallel passage of Paul’s in which baptism is clearly symbolic:
“For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” (I Corinthians 10: 1-4)
If “baptism into Moses” is so clearly symbolic in I Corinthians 10, then it adds credence to the idea that “baptism into Christ” is symbolic of participation in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ in Romans 6. Just as Christ was buried and arose, so Christians are buried and risen. This can be viewed as beautiful symbolic imagery, rather than literal description.
Why would Paul wish to use baptism symbolically in his writings? Since baptism typically accompanied First Century conversions – as any study of Acts will tell us – it was therefore highly appropriate that Paul used baptism to parallel the death and resurrection of Christ. Most converts would naturally identify their baptism with the time of their conversion to Christ, making Paul’s analogy effective and vivid to his audience.
(g.) Galatians 3:26-28
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Some have inferred from this passage that baptism is the moment people become “sons of God.” This interpretation is problematic for three reasons:
This approach is not consistent with the spirit of the passage. It is clear that Paul assumed that his readers had been baptized into Christ -- but it is not clear that this baptism was viewed to be for the purpose of salvation.
(h.) Colossians 2:11-12
“In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”
This passage has been interpreted to mean that baptism, as the counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision, plays a role in the forgiveness of sins under the New Covenant.
But if baptism is truly analogous to circumcision, as Paul suggests in Colossians 2, then we should consider the relationship between Abraham’s circumcision and justification described by Paul in Romans 4:
“…We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised…” (Romans 4: 9-11)
Paul says here that Abraham’s faith was “credited” as righteousness before his circumcision. Abraham’s sins were not forgiven by his circumcision, but through his faith. Abraham’s “point of salvation” preceded his circumcision. If baptism is truly parallel to circumcision, then we could infer that Christians can also obtain “righteousness” (forgiveness) prior to baptism.
Later in Romans 4, Paul brings New Covenant righteousness full-circle, making it contingent on belief:
“The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness – for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” (Romans: 4:24)
Granted, circumcision was a very important sign of the Old Covenant for Abraham’s descendants, but it was still a “sign”, according to Paul. If we continue the analogy between circumcision and baptism, we can therefore envision baptism as a sign of the New Covenant, a “seal” of a righteousness obtained by faith.
(i.) I Peter 3:20-21
“…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
I Peter 3:21 has been cited often in the case for baptismal regeneration because it contains the words (NIV), “baptism that now saves you.” We should ask, in what way does baptism “save” us, according to this verse? Bourland, Owen & Reid try to address this question:
The New Testament uses the same Greek word translated “saves” in I Peter 3:21 to refer to salvation from many things: from physical harm (Matthew 8:25), from anguish and suffering (John 12:27), from evil deeds (II Timothy 4:18), from oppression (Jude 5), from sickness (James 5:15), etc. For example, consider I Timothy 2:15:
“But women will be saved through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (NIV marginal reading).
Certainly “saved” does not refer here to salvation from the penalty of sin, or else every virgin would be damned! The context in which I Peter 3:21 appears must be examined to determine what sort of salvation Peter is referring to…(9)
These authors conclude that the “salvation” spoken of in I Peter 3:21 is from temptation:
In baptism one pledges before God to keep his conscience good…
Since baptism is a Christian’s visible pledge to maintain a good conscience before God, it saves the Christian from the temptation to live an ungodly life. (10)
This interpretation also parallels Noah’s family, which presumably wasn't spiritually "saved" by the flood, but rather was saved from living among an earthly generation of evil and violence (Genesis 6: 11-13).
Finally, Peter adds a qualification to how baptism “saves” – “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
Beisner notes that “it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase ‘[baptism] now saves us’ without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves…”(11)
In summary, Peter appears to be explaining the significance of baptism, while also seeming to say that it is not the physical water of baptism that saves.
We first reviewed several scriptures about belief. Then we reviewed several scriptures about baptism. At first these two sets of scriptures may seem to argue competing viewpoints. Sometimes these "competing" statements even come from the same speaker/author (e.g. Paul in Romans 3:21-27 and Romans 6:3-7 (12a); Peter in Acts 10:43 and I Peter 3:21). Thus we cannot choose one set of scriptures at the expense of the other: they must be harmonized.
If we take the "belief scriptures" as literally true, they say belief (true belief) is sufficient for salvation. But to get the baptism scriptures to say baptism is necessary for salvation, we usually need to do more than just assume these verses are using literal (not symbolic) language, we also need to add our own inferences to them (baptismal regenerationists may not even realize that they are drawing these inferences). These "baptism verses" as they are written do not seem to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation -- although they certainly indicate that baptism is an important part of Christianity.
In the writer’s opinion, then, the most reasonable way to reconcile these two sets of scriptures is to conclude that belief is sufficient, and therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Objections to belief being sufficient
Advocates of baptismal generation – and the ICC in particular – give some common objections to the idea that belief is sufficient. We will respond to several of these objections here:
“…baptism is an actual participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is not merely a sign, seal or symbol.”
Kip McKean, ICC founder, First Principles, Woburn, MA: Discipleship Publications International, 1993, p. 17.
The ICC claims that baptism as a sign, symbol or seal is false doctrine. But if the Apostle Paul did not intend for baptism to be considered a “sign” or “seal”, then why did he parallel baptism with circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12? Circumcision itself is a “sign” and “seal” (Romans 4:11). See prior section, letter (h.).
objection #2: the“sinner’s prayer”
“’Pray Jesus into your heart’: This phrase is never mentioned in the Bible.”
Kip McKean, First Principles, p. 16.
The ICC is correct that the “sinner’s prayer” (praying for Jesus to enter ones heart) is not in any of the Bible’s conversion stories. In fact, prayer is not mentioned at all, and yet we can surely imagine these converts praying at some point in the conversion process.
When the ICC assails the sinner’s prayer as false doctrine, it often misrepresents what the prayer means to those who teach it. Most of the sinner’s prayer’s supporters are evangelical Christians who support the "sufficiency of belief" for salvation – and therefore, they don't believe it is the prayer itself that saves in the first place.
One ICC article about the “false doctrine” of the sinner’s prayer lists the following version of the prayer by Campus Crusade Founder Bill Bright. If we compare this prayer with the “five-step plan” of salvation (hear the gospel, believe in Jesus as the son of God, repent of sin, confess Jesus as Lord and be baptized), we see that it covers very similar ground:
Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins [believe]. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord [confess Jesus as Lord]. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person you want me to be [repent]. (12)
In addition, a person must likely hear the gospel before wanting to pray such a prayer. That means that this sinner’s prayer covers four of the five steps in the "five-step plan" of salvation! What’s missing? Just baptism. Ultimately, ICC leadership objects to the “sinner’s prayer” because it omits baptism.
This is not to defend the sinner’s prayer entirely – certainly, some proponents have placed a non-scriptural emphasis on the prayer itself. But more often than not, ICC leadership has represented the "sinner's prayer" as a straw-man argument -- implying that people believe it is the prayer rather than grace through faith that saves.
[Note: it is possible to believe that belief is sufficient for salvation/conversion, without advocating the sinner’s prayer at all – although the ICC might try to link the two inseparably together.]
objection #3: argument from works
“Hey, but faith can’t be sufficient – the Bible says in James 2:17 that faith without works is dead” (no source: typical objection)
ICC leaders take James 2:17 out of context to suggest that faith/belief is not sufficient for conversion. However, when we look at the preceding verses, we see that James 2:17 was written to motivate people to do good deeds (specifically: helping the poor), not to explain the requirements for a valid conversion:
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." James 2:15-17
James 2:24 goes on to say that people are in some way “justified” by deeds and not just faith. This is a difficult verse to take literally, considering that many other Bible passages which use the same Greek word, dikaioo, say people are justified by faith/belief (Acts 13:39, Romans 3:26, 3:28, 4:2-9, 5:1-2, Galatians 2:16, 3:8, 3:24). The most reasonable interpretation of James 2 is that people who entirely lack good deeds don’t have true faith. The “belief” that saves apparently must go beyond a superficial, intellectual belief.
objection #4: argument from demons
“Yeah, but the Bible says that even demons believe. If demons believe but aren’t ‘saved,’ then how can you say belief is sufficient for salvation?” (no source: typical objection)
It is true that James 2:19 says, “even the demons believe,” but the entire passage of James 2:14-26 is not addressing the issue of conversion at all, but good deeds (see objection #3).
Furthermore, the “belief” of demons mentioned in the context of James 2:19 is not belief (faith) in Christ, but belief in the reality of one (singular) God: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.” (James 2:19).
Finally, demons are biblically portrayed to be destined for destruction no matter what they do (Matthew 8:29). Therefore, the “salvation of demons” is irrelevant to human conversion.
objection #5: the thief on the cross
“The false doctrine of the thief on the cross…”
Douglas Jacoby (Kingdom Teacher), Shining Like Stars: The Evangelism Handbook for the New Millennium, mil. ed., Woburn, MA: DPI, 2000, p. 114.
In the story of the thief on the cross, Jesus in Luke 23:43 promised a (presumably unbaptized) thief crucified next to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” The thief on the cross supports the idea that a person could be saved without baptism, yet ICC counter-arguments like the following ones try to rationalize this incident away:
While Jacoby is correct that Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins according to Mark 2:10, the verse doesn’t say that Jesus lacks this ability in heaven. In fact, considering that he was later given “all authority on heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18), it seems unreasonable to say that Jesus doesn’t have the power to forgive sins. If Jesus could forgive the sins of a non-baptized person while he was on earth, why couldn’t he also do so from heaven?
Jacoby’s counter-arguments regarding the thief on the cross continue:
These two arguments create some inconsistencies:
1.) Anyone who says that Jesus had to die before baptism could "work", cannot also argue that John 3:3-6 is about water baptism for salvation (discussed earlier): why would Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed water baptism to be "born again" if he couldn't get it yet?
2.) If baptism is necessary for salvation, but baptisms prior to Jesus death were invalid, then wouldn't this nullify the conversions of Jesus’ own apostles? If new covenant baptism did not take effect until after Jesus’ death, then we are forced to believe that the eleven surviving apostles either were re-baptized after Jesus’ death – in some episode omitted from the Bible – or that the apostles were not true Christians at all.
If you still think baptism is necessary for salvation
Still unconvinced of the sufficiency of faith? If so, don’t worry, you're not alone in the Christian world – in fact, you’re not even in the minority! The world’s largest church (Roman Catholic Church), many branches of Protestantism, and other groups all teach the necessity of baptism (typically expressed through the baptism of children/infants).
If you still believe that adult baptism is necessary for salvation, take heart that you are not alone, although the picture narrows considerably. Your view is largely shared among mainline Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches (sister branches of mainline Churches of Christ in the Restoration Movement), the Seventh Day Adventists, and other very controversial groups. (13)
Where does the ICC differ from these groups on baptism? First of all, the ICC seems to teach that ones very understanding of baptism can determine its effectiveness – going beyond what many in mainline churches would teach. ICC founder Kip McKean even questioned the salvation of Restoration Movement pioneer Alexander Campbell because Campbell did not get re-baptized after his understanding of baptism had changed:
“Alexander himself was never baptized again for the purpose of the remission of sins. He felt it was okay if you retroactively understood it. I’m not going to say where Alexander Campbell stands before God – God will judge, amen? But let me tell you something, when I read my Bible, you must be baptized for the remission of sins, understanding that. It is the truth of God, it doesn’t make any difference how many, or how few believe it.”
Kip McKean, Why Do You Resist the Spirit?, DPI Archive Cassette Series, Tape # 4207, August 28, 1987.
According to McKean and the ICC, it wasn't enough for someone to have faith and get baptized, one must also have faith in baptism as the vehicle for salvation. This isn't teaching faith and baptism, it's teaching faith in baptism.
Finally, the ICC has taught that a person must be a disciple before baptism – or at least prove that he or she has the commitment of a disciple before baptism – in order for baptism to "work." This teaching was unsound, and resulted from a grammatical misunderstanding of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 (see Disciples Baptism).
So, while the ICC has criticized other Christian groups for their teachings on baptism, the ICC’s historical interpretation raises real concerns of its own. Here is a final challenge to the ICC’s historical position on baptism:
Hopefully this article has given readers some new insights on the issue of baptism and salvation, and has encouraged greater tolerance toward the beliefs of others. Truly, most sincere religious groups and individuals have reasons for believing as they do.
(1) A similar question is asked in Acts 2:37, “Brothers, what shall we do?” In strictest terms, however, Acts 2:37 does not ask “what shall we do to be saved?”
(2) The age at which a person is considered, by some, to be conscious of his or her own sin, and therefore, responsible for it.
(3) Certain verses such as Rev 3:20 or I John 1:3-6 have been intentionally avoided because the relevance of these passages can be disputed. There are plenty of other scriptures to use to make this case.
(4) Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981.
(5) Ibid.
(6) E. Charles Beisner, Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?, http://members.aol.com/djrtx/bapt2.htm, 1995.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Eugene Bourland, Phil Owen & Paul Reid, The Issue of Water Baptism and Salvation in The International (Boston) “Church of Christ” and the Mainline “Church of Christ,” Waltham, MA: Waltham Evangelical Free Church, 1986, revised 1989.
(10) Ibid.
(11) E. Charles Beisner, Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
(12) Bill Bright’s version of the sinner’s prayer in Steve Staten (Chicago Elder), The Sinner’s Prayer – Evolution of a False Doctrine, kindomnews.net.org, February 22, 2001.
(12a) Note that
(13) In fact, outside of what's commonly regarded as mainstream Christianity, there are some gigantic (and controversial) organizations that teach salvation via adult baptism, including the Latter Day Saints Church (Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses. A smaller but also reputedly cultic group, the United Pentecostals, also teach salvation via adult baptism.
(14) First century "Restorationists" who try to restore First Century conversion practices have a particular dilemma: there are no New Testament examples of second generation conversions (baptism of those who grew up as sons and daughters of believers). Their is no Biblical evidence of these individuals being baptized specifically as babies or adults: the Bible seems silent on this issue.
Copyright © 2001, 2003 Dave Anderson. All rights reserved.
