Baptism Revisited
Baptism Revisited
The meaning, mode and significance of this initiation rite of Christianity has been debated for centuries. People elevate its importance so highly that they make wrongful assertions about what it actually accomplishes. Others see the act of baptism as an important command (among many) that a conscientious Christian should obey following their conversion.
Any discussion of baptism, and any other seemingly “conditional” passages of scripture related to salvation must be understood through the lens of faith. If one misunderstands the nature of faith, they will also misunderstand what being saved “by grace through faith” means. The Bible emphatically teaches that faith is the only approach to God through which a person can be saved. No amount of work or obedience can give us the amount of righteousness we need to secure our own salvation. One of the most important Christian doctrines is the truth that the only effective reaction humans can make toward God is that of faith.
The reason faith is the primary condition of salvation is because salvation is offered to us as a promise, not law. While the only way laws and commands can be fulfilled is by an act of obedience, there is no way we can obey a promise (at least in the normal way the Bible uses the word, “obey.”) It is true that the Bible refers to people who accept God’s offer of salvation by positively responding as “obeying the Gospel” (see Romans 10:16, II Thess. 1:8, I Peter 4:17, Hebrews 5:9.) This command to accept the salvation of God differs, however, from commands given to Christians to yield their lives in obedience to the exhortations and ethical calling of holiness and service.
All we can do with a promise is to believe and accept it through faith. How and when we accept God’s promise through faith, however, is very important. While the Bible teaches that the only response we can make to God’s promise is one of faith, we express and ‘’dramatize” that response of faith in very real and visual ways. Faith produces obedience. The faith we have in our lifelong journey as Christians produces the obedience involved in our personal sanctification process. This obedience is yielding to the power of the living Holy Spirit within as a Christian seeks to be conformed to the image of the Savior, Jesus. However, faith when it is related to our initial salvation, i.e., saving faith, leads people to embrace and yield to actions related to salvation, such as confession, repentance, and baptism. While confession and repentance are ongoing, inner faith responses, baptism is a one-time faith response. While some might view these as “conditions” of salvation, more correctly, they are obedient reactions of people expressing their faith. All are components of what the Bible calls, “obeying the gospel.”
Some people cannot fathom the idea that anything (particularly something physical like being baptized) could be so intimately associated with saving faith, so any passage that supports the link between baptism and salvation will be explained away in some way or another to make them two separate entities. We’ll discuss more about these things later in the study, but for now let’s look at the early beginnings of baptism. Where did this initiation rite begin?
The record of the Bible has abundant grounds to show that this was an important initiation rite of Christianity. But baptism did not originate with Jesus and his followers. It was not a new idea when the church began in 33 A.D. Hebrews 6:2 confirms that the Jews had many “washings” and baptisms related to ceremonial defilement and a host of other things related to their old law.
Baptism was (along with circumcision) one of the important acts a Gentile needed to observe when he chose to become a member of the Jewish nation as a proselyte. So when John the Baptist came on the scene prior to Jesus’ ministry in Mark 1:4, calling for people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, it was not the physical act of baptism itself that was new.
What was new (and irritating to some) was that John’s preaching implied that their Jewish heritage did not insure that they stood in a right relationship with God. God was looking to the individual inner heart of a person rather than one’s corporate identity as a Jew as the basis of acceptance. John understood his baptism to be given to people who were willing to acknowledge and repent of their sins. He also understood that what he was doing was definitely connected to washing people’s sins away.
The Jews lived under the old Mosaic Law with a limited and shadowy concept of sin-forgiveness. The prophets of old understood the ineffective value of the law to truly forgive sin. They looked with anticipation to the coming of a new covenant in which God promised that “...I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34.) And now standing before them is a prophet of God proclaiming a baptism that was given with a view toward receiving that forgiveness.
So when Jesus came on the scene in Matthew 3:13, John was understandably confused. Jesus did not need to receive John’s baptism for any of the stated purposes John was doing it. Jesus had no sins for which he needed saving, no defilement for which he needed to repent. But if John’s ministry and baptism were authorized expressions of God’s purpose for men, Jesus was showing that he himself, as a man, needed to yield to that divine purpose, whatever it might involve.
Jesus himself identifies that the reason that he needed John to baptize him was to “fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 4:15) When one considers that one of the primary aims of John’s message was a call for men to conform to the will of God, Jesus as the one sent by God to redeem the world would certainly understand the necessity in his own life of yielding to the will of God in every step of his walk. And we see throughout his ministry a profound sense of Jesus only doing that which was sanctioned by the Father.
John’s baptism, along with its association with repentance and forgiveness of sin, included one more very essential aspect to it. It was a washing that looked forward in anticipation to the Messiah, whose own salvation would also include the gift of God’s Holy Spirit personally being given to people.
When Jesus concluded his ministry he commanded his Apostles in Mathew 28:18ff, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” This commission is repeated in Mark 16:15 ff. While the text in Mark has been debated for manuscript authenticity, the wording regarding baptism is consistent with the rest of the New Testament. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.” And again we see the inseparable connection between salvation and baptism.
This connection continues into the book of Acts, which is the recording of the activity of the early church in the immediate years following Jesus’ ministry. In this book we read the early accounts of Peter and other disciples as they carried the news of Jesus to the world. We follow the journeys of Paul and others who made their way through the known world, preaching the message of Christ. Baptism is recorded in connection with many conversion accounts of believers throughout the book.
In Acts 2, Paul confronts the Jewish crowd gathered for the Feast of Pentecost with the truth that they have rejected God’s anointed and in doing so bear corporate responsibility for Jesus’ death. With a deep conviction of guilt they ask Peter what they need to do. Peter tells them to “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.”
Some say that this command, to be baptized “for” [the Greek word, eis] the forgiveness of sins does not imply that the forgiveness of sins has a direct connection with baptism. The argument is that the preposition eis in Greek can mean “in connection with,” or “in the light of.” If this last interpretation is meant, Peter would be simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins. Thinking this way, the act of divine forgiveness would render baptism important and significant, but not essential.
Granted, the preposition, ‘eis,’ can be used in many ways. However, when you notice how the word is overwhelmingly used, ‘eis’ aims in a forward pointing direction, such as leading to, or leading toward. It is also used in the sense of ‘in reference to’ or ‘in accordance with’ which implies association with something. In over 1,700 times where the word, ‘eis’ is used, in only a very few cases (Matthew 12:41, Luke 11:32, and Romans 4:20) one might possibly translate, “in light of,” or “in the face of.”
It is best to let the context determine what is being said. And however it is used in Acts 2:38, you can’t split the pair up and say ‘eis’ means one thing with regard to repentance and another when it comes to baptism. In other words, you can’t interpret this passage in a way that would have the Jewish audience hearing the following, “You need to repent so that you can be forgiven, but then you need to be baptized because you have been forgiven.” That kind of interpretation would not get past the eyes of even a novice Greek scholar!
The natural sense that an un-coached, unbiased person reading this passage for the first time would be that 3000 people came to understand there was a direct correlation between their denial of Jesus as the Messiah, their need to repent and be baptized, and their very forgiveness. It was upon their repentance and baptism that these souls were added to the church.
The timing of their salvation coincided with their baptism. The scripture does not imply that their baptism was the effective agent or the active ingredient that caused their forgiveness or the reception of the Holy Spirit. But baptism is certainly shown to be a validating and obedient act of saving faith that was made when they recognized their personal guilt and need of forgiveness. This was the point at which their status was changed in the eyes of God! The decision these believers made was done with a heart properly aimed at God, and at this time God removed the condemnation associated with their former sin. He forgave them in their baptism.
Chapter 8 of Acts relates the account of the gospel as it spread beyond the borders of Judea and to people other than Jews, namely the Samaritan disciples and an Ethiopian eunuch, who upon hearing the gospel message of Jesus presented by Philip, were baptized. Even without any discussion of the theology behind the act, these two events continue to connect the presentation of the message of Jesus and his gospel to the response of people wishing to obey the gospel call.
In Acts 9 we read the account of the Jewish Pharisee named Saul (later called by his Roman name, Paul), who was one of Christianity’s worst antagonists. The account of his journey to arrest Christians, his encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, his blinding and subsequent healing by Ananias, his conversion to Christ, and his baptism is told three times in the book of Acts (9:1-8, 22:3-16, and 26:9-20.) Particularly in Acts 22 the story as told by Paul clarifies the connection between baptism and his own conversion experience.
Paul shares how the prophet, Ananias, confirms God’s calling for him to be a witness to all men, and then asks him, “Why do you wait? Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins.” Again the connection is clearly made between the act of baptism and sin forgiveness. Paul’s entire conversion experience culminated in baptism, the point at which his sins were washed away. And this was done (Acts 22:16) while calling upon the “name of the Lord.” This phrase signified Paul’s understanding that in his baptism, he was identifying himself wholly with Jesus Christ and all that this relationship entailed. “Calling on the name of Jesus” is not simply a thought acknowledged in the mind. Nor is it just an expression uttered by the lips. It involves all aspects of a person tying themselves to Jesus as their Lord, including repentance, confession, and baptism. This helps to understand the full gamut of what is involved in Romans 10:13, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
After Paul’s conversion we see him carrying the message of Jesus as he journeyed from place to place in what we call Paul’s “Missionary Journeys.” We read the story of Lydia in Acts 16, as well as the conversion of a jailer. In both of these accounts not only were the initial contacts baptized, but the message of Jesus was accepted by the rest of their respective households. In these accounts, baptism is again seen as the “faith response” to the sharing of the Gospel.
Beyond the narratives of Paul and his declaration of the Gospel, we also have the account of Peter as he encounters a non-Jewish centurion named Cornelius in Acts 10. In this account we find a man whose baptism actually comes after the Holy Spirit comes upon his household. Some would suggest that this shows that baptism is not connected to salvation. After all, how could the Spirit be received by people whose sins had not yet been forgiven?
Actually, the events of Acts 10:44-48 are seen by Peter himself as an exception to the rule. Many see this as a case where God is trying to crack the thick skulls of the Jews to get it into their heads that the Gentiles are now accepted as legitimate members of God’s kingdom. No matter how one views it, we see many places where God “pours forth his Spirit” on whomever He wishes in whatever fashion He so chooses without that activity always being associated with sin-forgiveness. We witness the activity of God’s Spirit upon donkeys (Numbers 22), pagan Gentile kings (Ezra 1:1) and dead men’s bones (Ezekiel 37) without making assumptions as to the status of their souls.
The fact that Peter cannot envision the Spirit’s activity without the normal accompanying baptism actually affirms that the early church saw baptism as intimately tied to a person’s becoming a Christian. To understand this passage would involve additional study on the difference between the “baptism of the Spirit” given to whomever God so wills, and the “indwelling of the Spirit” given to those who respond in faith to the Gospel of Jesus.
Another reference to baptism should be noted from Acts 19:1-6. “And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.”
The suggestion is made that John’s baptism was not sufficient for salvation, and that is the reason these men needed to be re-baptized. However, the story suggests otherwise. We find no place in scripture where people legitimately baptized with John’s baptism (which, by the way, was for the forgiveness of sins) were ever told to be re-baptized. If any legitimate recipient of John’s baptism had died prior to the cross, their baptism would not have been nullified. The fact that Jesus did not die for another three years has no affect on their sin forgiveness. True, their forgiveness might not have been ratified by blood at the time they were baptized, but how many of us have gotten tickets to a concert in advance, knowing that when the time comes we will have access as promised. After the cross, in a manner of speaking, people got their admission at the gate. The major (but not only) difference between Christian baptism and the baptism of John is in the activity and indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.
This reasoning shows why one cannot use Acts 19 as proof that John’s baptism really was not associated with forgiveness. Granted, this is a difficult passage. One needs to look closely at each phrase to understand what is happening here. When these men (who were evidently followers of Jesus) said they did not even know of a Holy Spirit, and then followed that up by stating that they had received John’s baptism, Paul immediately knew something was amiss. He knew they did not get John’s baptism right from the get-go, because John clearly taught about the role of the Holy Spirit when the Messiah would come. Not to understand the role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, even for those claiming to have received John’s baptism, was tantamount to these men only getting wet. So really they had not received any legitimate baptism, not even John’s.
So hence, we find the only place in recorded scripture where any of the thousands of Jews receiving John’s baptism are said to have been re-baptized. In actuality, these men were simply being baptized correctly for the first time. (Note: The 3000 of Acts 2 either had not been previously baptized into John’s baptism or had nullified that baptism because of their self admission that they had denied Jesus as the one to come. True recipients of John’s baptism would have accepted Jesus as the one to come.)
One very important truth should also be mentioned here. Many people today are being taught about baptism but are leaving out one of the most important aspects of baptism, that being the work and purpose of God’s Holy Spirit. One can debate the different aspects of how God’s Spirit worked in the book of Acts, but the truth is that a true and proper exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ must include a proper understanding of the reality and power of God’s Holy Spirit as He indwells the life of a Christian. We don’t have time in the scope of this study to address that topic.
So in the book of Acts we see many accounts of people becoming Christians. It is true that not all of these accounts expressly mention baptism as being associated with conversion. In some places there is a connection between repentance and faith without mentioning baptism. In other places he does not mention faith or repentance at all. We find people being baptized without specific instructions to do so. Can we not reasonably understand that we simply don’t have a written record of every single word of every single Gospel message? It is certainly true that the Bible associates a convert’s faith with salvation more numerously than it does other aspects of conversion such as repentance or baptism. This is because we are saved by grace through faith. But the fact that we do find certain “faith responses” shows how early converts “validated” their faith.
Beyond these personal accounts of baptism lie the theological accounts given by various authors of the New Testament. It is in the letters of Paul and Peter that we get a fuller understanding of why baptism is so important and how it is related to salvation.
First of all we have the account of Paul in Romans 6:3-4. In these verses Paul does not set out to teach a theology on baptism. Rather, he assumes that his readers are fully aware of the importance of the act and is simply reminding them of baptism’s association with their own decision to identify with the death and resurrection of Christ. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Efforts have been made to spiritualize these verses to say that Paul is referring to “spiritual baptism” but again, this interpretation is used by those who are not willing to acknowledge literal water baptism as the point in time where we personally identify with Jesus and make his death and life our own death and life.
The importance of baptism is again mentioned in Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Galatians is a book devoted to the proposition that we are saved by faith, and that any attempt to merit salvation or gain entrance into fellowship with God through observing works of law is futile. While law (specifically the Law of Moses) held an important place as a schoolmaster and tutor, it never replaced faith, which has always been God’s basis of righteousness from the beginning. When Jesus came, he became the object of faith for those wishing to truly be saved. Now that the promised one has come, faith is the only appropriate response for those wishing to receive the inheritance of eternal life. Those who respond in faith are the ones who are made righteous. In Galatians 3:27 it is clear that one’s baptism is directly associated with their “putting on” the clothing of Christ, which is the mantle of his own righteousness. The order is of importance. Paul does not say, “for as many of you who have put on Christ were then baptized into Christ.”
In Ephesians 4:5 we find a list of seven essential truths identified with Christianity. One of those truths is that there is “one baptism.” While this passage does not illuminate the theology of baptism as other texts do, what it does demonstrate is that baptism is seen as an event which the universal church, the entire whole of God’s people, recognizes as a common experience of their existence. The significance of baptism is shared by every believer as being one of the essential doctrines unifying believers. This shows that baptism should not be viewed as an optional event which one might or might not receive after they become a Christian.
In Colossians 2:11-13, we find a very important passage on the subject of baptism. “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead.”
First of all, we find in this passage a discussion about circumcision. Physical circumcision was an important ritual of the Jews performed in their sons on the eighth day of life, which validated their place in God’s physical heritage. Some believe that Paul sees Old Testament circumcision as a “sign” and “seal” of the righteousness that Abraham had, given to him because of his faith. So the parallel thought would be that Christian baptism is the new seal God has given to people after they become Christians, an act which identifies that they are members of God’s new family.
In reality, when Paul references circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12, he is not paralleling Christian baptism with Old Testament circumcision. He is contrasting Old Testament circumcision (of humans putting away fleshly skin) with New Testament baptism (God putting away spiritual sin.) The only connection between the two circumcisions is that in both there is a putting away of something, one being physical, (and done by man) the other being spiritual (and done by God.) What Paul DOES understand about baptism is that it pinpoints this time when people share in Christ’s spiritual circumcision and when their sins are put away by God.
In truth, Old Testament circumcision was a seal (or more accurately, a sign) of the covenant relationship between the descendants of Abraham and God. In the New Testament, it is not baptism that represents the seal of the Christian, given after salvation. Paul never thought of baptism as a seal of the New Covenant. To Paul and the teaching of scripture, the seal of the Christian is the Holy Spirit, which DOES follow upon a person’s conversion. (Ephesians 1:13, Eph. 4:30, II Corinthians 1:22.)
Another very important aspect of baptism in Colossians is its connection to saving faith. When we are baptized, we are making a declaration of faith that God is doing a spiritual work in our lives that can only be done by him. The proof of God’s power to accomplish his salvation is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Of all the passages in the New Testament that shed light upon the meaning of baptism, perhaps the most powerful is found in I Peter 3:20-21. “… God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
When Peter mentions baptism, he is not referring to some sort of spiritual or figurative baptism. He is referring to the physical act of a person being plunged under water. What Peter is saying is that while this immersion certainly is something we do with our bodies, baptism at its core is not a physical act but a spiritual one. It is not a work of merit, as washing dirt from a body might be. It isn’t a washing that has mysterious and transforming benefits in and of itself. That would indeed be baptismal regeneration, a false doctrine of baptism which we will discuss shortly. Rather, physical baptism is only meaningful because of its relationship to spiritual realities.
Matthew Henry himself in volume 6 of his commentary on I Peter 3:21 discusses the function of baptism, and ties its importance to the spiritual reality of the resurrection. Henry says:
“The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God…”
The truth that baptism is not about the physical but the spiritual is seen in other places we have already addressed:
* Romans 6:3… We are baptized into Christ. The important word is Christ. Only He can affect our salvation.
* Galatians 3:27… We put on Christ. Baptism only has merit in that we are covered, as it were, in the garment of Christ.
* Colossians 2:12…baptism demonstrates our faith in the working of God. We trust in faith that God is dealing with our sin-situation at the time of our baptism.
Some have compared the “pledge of a good conscience” to the concept of agreeing to the terms and limitations of an ‘app’ or software that we download to our computers. We make a pledge of good conscience when we agree to the terms. This would say that when God calls people to accept the terms and privileges of discipleship, in our baptism, we are saying, “Yes.”
Peter is not saying that one is saved, then gets a good conscience, and then because of that cleansed conscience gets baptized. The “pledge of a good conscience” is not the same as “the response of a cleansed Christian.” The point of Peter is to show that baptism is a spiritual event dealing with the willing heart of a person, doing what they are doing with a good conscience. It is the response/pledge/answer of one who knows what he is doing and why he is doing it.
To Peter, baptism is a specific moment and action, occurring in water. This is why it is so critical that he immediately qualifies what the action is not, lest someone misinterpret it to assume there is some kind of power in the event itself. This is not a magical spiritual dirt removal scheme. What saves the Christian is not the action done on man’s part. It is the action done on God’s part. Baptism saves because in it, a believer is consciously (the pledge) declaring that our response to Christ’s resurrection is putting us in a proper relationship with God.
Baptism is not a bath. It has no mysterious powers to change a person’s spiritual condition. But equally true, it is not an appendage to some other salvation process. Something actually does happen at the time of baptism. It is the moment in time when we embrace that what is involved in baptism actually is what saves us. And what is involved in baptism is all wrapped up in the saving work of Jesus Christ and our faith response to him. Baptism only “saves” because it is tied to spiritual events which save.
Another passage which helps illuminate the meaning of baptism is I Cor. 1:15-17. Here Paul affirms that he was sent to preach the Gospel, not to baptize people. One might question how an apostle of Christ would not be called to baptize, since he is trying to bring people into a forgiven relationship with the Father. This scripture might seem to detach baptism from the message of the Gospel and lessen its importance.
When one notices the context of the situation in Corinth, however, it helps to clarify Paul’s position. We see the church in Corinth divided into sectarian groups, each one feeling superior to the other. One of those groups, incidentally, was the group who elevated the importance of Paul over other church leaders (“I am of Paul.”) Given this context, Paul says, “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of you.” Why? It isn’t because he doesn’t regard baptism as important. (Jesus didn’t personally baptize others but still commands all men everywhere to be baptized for the remission of sins.) Rather, Paul knew that if he would have baptized them, the resulting “I am of Paul” group would have even had more ammunition to base their boasting. Paul didn't want anyone getting a wrong impression of his focus or his ministry.
While we need to be careful in how we use analogies, there is one picture which beautifully illustrates the similarity of baptism with a wedding ceremony. Preaching baptism without preaching the Gospel is like preaching the importance of a wedding ceremony without focusing on commitment, love and relationship. Paul said (figuratively speaking) that he came to preach love and commitment, not to perform wedding ceremonies. But does that therefore mean that a man and woman’s status in the eyes of God is changed at some point other than at the exchange of the wedding vows during the wedding ceremony? So for Paul to say the focus of his mission was not specifically to baptize does not in any way negate the importance of it. He was talking to people who could easily have elevated this vehicle of faith above faith (which saves) itself.
With all of these scriptures before us, we can draw a better picture of why baptism is so important and how it relates to saving faith. Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing: it (salvation) is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Faith is an often misunderstood term. Some would equate it simply to a person’s believing that the story of the Gospel is true. While faith certainly does include a person’s belief, faith also includes a trust which leads to some kind of tangible response. James 2:14-26 shows this truth. Some might want to say, “I have faith.” But James demonstrates that without the visible evidence of faith, the word lies empty. “Faith, apart from works, is dead.” Based on what we have already seen in Ephesians 2:8, we come to understand that the works James refers to are in no way works of merit in an attempt to gain favor from God. The works James refers to is the visual testimony that always accompanies faith. Again, this passage shows that true faith always produces obedience. If it doesn’t, another word needs to be used other than faith.
In Hebrews 11:1 the writer says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I emphasize the words ‘substance’ and ‘evidence’ to show that faith is validated and made real by the evidence that follows it. In this faith chapter, the commonly recurring theme is, “by faith...they did something.” The Israelites were saved by faith. The sprinkled blood on the door lintels did not earn the Israelites anything, but was evidence of the people’s faith. It saved them because it was done in faith, which was what really saved them. Rahab was saved by her faith. The crimson cord was not a work of merit but evidence of her faith. It saved her because it was associated with her faith, which is what really saved her.
Faith is dead unless it is accompanied with validation. To equate saving faith simply with one’s belief in the truth of the Gospel story is insufficient faith, for, “Even the demons believe, and shudder!” (James 2:19) We can believe that our car will start. But our faith in that truth can only be validated when we put the key in and actually turn it. We can believe that the meal before us will nourish us and not infect us through botulism. But our faith in that truth is validated when we sit down and actually eat it.
So yes, we are saved by faith. We are not saved by works of law keeping. For baptism to be linked biblically to salvation is proof in itself that baptism in and of itself is not a work of merit. It is wrong to claim that baptism can do more than the Bible claims it does. This is important because there are people in the religious world who do believe in what is called “water regeneration.” This teaching is that in baptism the water is the active ingredient that saves people, so it is an absolute prerequisite for salvation. This teaching says that one is "regenerated" by the actual act of baptism. If you tie this with the unscriptural belief that people are totally depraved at birth, one could understand why certain churches might practice infant baptism.
My concern is not the false teaching of “water regeneration” that sees some mysterious act happening because of the rite itself. A deeper concern is that some mistakenly connect “water regeneration” with certain churches, and make blanket statements about what other similarly named churches believe just because people see an essential connection between baptism and salvation.
Saying that regeneration occurs at the time of baptism is not the same as saying regeneration occurs as a result of baptism (baptismal regeneration). Also, saying that baptism is associated with salvation is not the same as saying that baptism is what imputes salvation. I do not believe in baptismal regeneration (nor do I believe that baptism can be relegated to an after-the-fact act of obedience that one does AFTER regeneration.) However, the way many people teach baptism (even in my own fellowship) could lead someone to infer that baptismal regeneration is being taught.
As I look back through the years at my own understanding of baptism, I have myself tried to prove baptism’s essentiality through using arguments and logical pictures and analogies that only partially conveyed the whole truth. I am hoping through this article to not only come to a more biblical understanding of baptism personally, but also to help people who are in a similar boat as me, who do not see baptism as either “water regeneration” or “an outward testimony of an inner grace,” yet do seek to find more clarity on the issue than perhaps we have had in the past. It is difficult to look at such a polarizing issue with fresh eyes. But if we would be true to God’s Word, we must always be searching and listening, ready to hear should God reveal new light to us which might challenge our engrained beliefs.
For instance, in the past I myself have taught the gospel in terms like five steps that a person takes (hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized.) I have used analogies like that of a key, turning tumblers in the lock of a safe which all have to fall into place before the door will open. While these various steps and tumblers all important, there is a danger in confusing or equating the role of any of these “faith responses” with the role of faith itself. While the Bible does discuss essential faith responses, we do not gain salvation through putting five spiritual quarters in God’s $1.25 salvation machine, then rejoicing when God dispenses our heavenly reward. It is wrong to place different aspects or obedient statements of saving faith on an equal par with saving faith itself. The only reason that any of these responses have any meaning at all is because they are inextricably linked to faith, which saves!
Also understanding the true nature of saving faith keeps one from oversimplifying baptism to reduce it to an unessential, but important “first act of obedience.” Should one ask about the moment when someone became a Christian, some might say, “When I believed,” or “When I put my faith in Jesus.” But how can a person clearly identify when that point was? We know how prone the human psyche is to vacillation, to moving in and out of trust, conviction, doubt, skepticism. At what point in time was the definitive moment of your decision such that you can nail it down as the moment you became united with Christ? Was it when a “sinner’s prayer” was recited? Was it at some unidentifiable time when you remember giving your life to God? God places a premium on the importance of visual anchor points. The Bible recognizes that this anchor point is found in Christian baptism. The weight of scripture shows that New Testament believers knowing their need to be identified and united with Christ met that need in the act of their baptism. As surely as we can remember that we were baptized, we can remember that God has saved us.
I understand that it doesn’t seem to make sense that God would use a physical act like getting plunged under water to accomplish his will. It seems illogical that God would choose to tie such a significant and life-changing event as one’s very salvation to such a simple physical activity like baptism. As I thought about the answer to this question, the purpose of baptism suddenly became very real and meaningful to me. Does it seem improper and even foolish to equate a physical event with cosmic, eternal realities?
But what of the cross? How about the physical event we call the crucifixion? There we see physical elements of thorns, iron spikes, wooden beams, spears, water, and blood. There we see a physical place in a specific moment of human history and time, which had consequences that reached from the depths of hell to the heights of heaven. It may seem to not make sense, but then, as Paul says in I Corinthians 1:18, “The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
If in God’s sovereign wisdom he caused a physical event as the crucifixion to have such spiritual effects, can we not see how that might help us to understand the significance of a physical act as baptism? It is at its core a physical event that touches and affects spiritual realities. In fact, it is baptism’s figurative connection with death, burial and resurrection which could well explain why God would choose such a seemingly simple act like being plunged under water to be the intersection in time when his grace meets man’s faith.
In the death and resurrection of Jesus God “concretized” his offer to man (a term used by Oscar Brooks in his excellent book on Baptism, The Drama of Decision.) And similarly, now man has a place where he can meet Jesus and accept God’s offer. In baptism, man “concretizes” his decision to accept God’s plan to remedy his situation. Colossians 2:12 confirms this truth, by reminding us that it is in the act of baptism that we recognize “by faith” that a very spiritual event is occurring in the heavenlies which is in no way related to anything we could ever do or hope to achieve on our own.
I could understand how a person of the world would consider baptism to be sort of a silly demonstration. But it should be perfectly understandable for someone who knows the God of the Bible to see how he would use such a symbol like water in his plan for the salvation of man. However, we need to be careful about what God is doing with that water. We must make sure we do not overestimate or underestimate the avenue of water in God’s salvation plan.
Water has always been a very important theme in many of God’s stories, from the creation account, to the exodus of Israel from Egypt, to the sustenance of Israel in the wilderness, to the ceremonial cleansings of the law, to the miracles of Jesus. Two stories come to mind which illustrate the connection between water, obedience and God’s cleansing. While faith is the predominant theme in both, it is interesting to see the role water plays as visual “evidence” in saving faith.
First of all, consider the man, Naaman. His story is found in II Kings 5. He was a Syrian army commander who had leprosy. An Israelite girl who had been taken into captivity during one of Syria’s raids into Israel worked for Naaman’s wife. She told Naaman’s wife that a prophet in Samaria could heal Naaman. Naaman went to Samaria to seek the audience of Elisha. Elisha sent a messenger to Naaman which established the conditions of Naaman’s cleansing, “go wash seven times in the Jordan and your flesh will be restored.” Naaman was upset that Elisha didn't come to see him personally. Naaman thought Elisha would just wave his hand over him with big fanfare and cure him in dramatic fashion. Naaman complained that the waters of his own land were better than the Jordan. Despite all of his arguments that seemed to make sense to him, nothing cleansed Naaman until he met the conditions established through Elisha’s word. His washing in the Jordan did not follow after his cleansing. Did the water of the Jordan River cleanse Naaman? No, his obedient faith did. But he was cleansed through the medium of water, and those seven dips were his expression of faith. His cleansing through the power of God occurred simultaneously with his expression of faith. Faith saved Naaman … through water.
When seen this way we can see that Naaman was being obedient to God, but this obedience bore more weight than other acts of obedience which had nothing to do with his leprosy. This can help us to see that baptism is, yes, a command to be obeyed which is inseparably tied to one’s salvation and spiritual cleansing. But this act of obedience is not on the same level as other life commands or other ethical exhortations Christians are called to obey to “confirm and validate” our election after we are saved.
Similar to Naaman is the story of Noah, whose link to baptism has been noted previously in I Peter 3. When Noah’s family was saved, was it the water that saved him? No, it was Noah’s faith. Hebrews 11:7 confirms this. He and his family were saved through the medium of water as a result of his expression of faith.
It is important from the beginning to emphasize that water does not save people from their sins. Water regeneration is a false doctrine. But belief alone doesn’t save either. As the heroes in Hebrews by faith, did something which “evidenced” and gave solid substance to their faith, so we can say, by faith, we were baptized into Christ and in that act, we put our faith in the promise of God that he would work his transforming power in our lives.
In making such a statement, we must answer a very challenging question. If baptism is taught as that moment in time when a believer “concretizes” their faith, what is to be said for people whose circumstances hinder them from being baptized? Would such a person be saved? And if they in fact could be saved without being baptized, does this not prove that baptism is not an essential aspect of salvation?
That is actually a very good question. For a person who believes so strongly in the power in the water (water regeneration) it would be particularly difficult to answer. For someone who understands the nature of saving faith, however, it is not difficult. I believe such a person in those unfortunate shoes would be saved. I believe the scripture teaches that God honors and embraces with joy those times when people respond to the light they have about spiritual realities. Romans 2:13-14 implies that God is big enough to be a fair judge even of people who have no understanding of his written law. He is also the fair judge of people who are “providentially hindered” from doing physical things they would otherwise do if given the chance.
This does not nullify other more “inner man” faith responses of the heart such as confession and repentance. But in the case of an outward event like baptism, it is conceivable that there could be situations where a person might not be able to do it. It would be rare, but possible. I have seen quadriplegics baptized. I have known people to chop holes in the ice to reach the water. I have seen tarps in the back of pickup trucks filled with water to accommodate the desire of the believer. To be sure, the water in itself doesn’t save, but the act of baptism is so important that people make any arrangement they can to validate their faith as soon as they can.
But we must remember that these are exceptions to God’s ideal. While I believe that God loves, fosters and honors any human response to the light they have at a given time in their life, God also desires for people to grow in their understanding of that light. I have no problem with God accepting the faith of someone who does not know about baptism or who is unable to be baptized. My concern is for those who DO understand the truth and importance of the act and yet deny that understanding or try to minimize that truth.
I once was asked this question by an evangelical friend of mine, “What about good honest people who have given their lives to God in faith and have always held that baptism was a response of obedience following salvation? Or what about those who felt that baptism was an outer sign of an inner work already accomplished? Is our salvation in jeopardy?” My response to him was that we must always respect the faithful convictions of others, and be glad that God will judge us based upon the available light we have at the time. Since many make decisions based on what might be faulty knowledge, we can trust that God will honor such faith. I also told him that while I believe this, we are not at liberty to make assumptions about or dismiss what God ideally desires of his people. Each individual is accountable to God and must judge for themselves if the decisions they have made with the light they have is acceptable in the eyes of God. Fortunately, I am not the judge of such people, but nonetheless I will always feel the responsibility to share what I believe to be the truth about a given issue.
In summary, the Bible is abundantly clear that there is nothing about the water of baptism itself that has the power to bring about a person’s salvation. But the Bible links baptism to saving faith with such a strong cord that shows it to be far more important than simply an outward symbol of obedience that someone does after they become a Christian. Baptism in the Bible is not an appendage added to saving faith. Something happens at the time of the experience. We are not saved by baptism. We are not saved before baptism. We are not saved after baptism.
We are saved in baptism!
