Salvation & Baptism: Objections Answered

     Ok, so the Christian Church/Churches of Christ believe that water baptism is an essential element in salvation.  This is a very offensive teaching to many modern Baptist and Evangelical folks who have adopted a "Grace-alone/faith-alone" position and deny that baptism has anything to do with salvation.  In other articles (Salvation: Introduction and Salvation: The Role & of Baptism) I have tried to explain our understanding of Scripture and why we take this position.  But, what are the objections and arguments offered by the opposition against our position?  These objections and counter-arguments need to be identified and answered.  I have noticed that these folks tend to argue for handling “prophecy” passages in a “straight-forward/literal” fashion, but they seem to drop this and embrace “allegorical, symbolism, and mysticism” when totally disconnecting salvation from all of the New Testament “baptism” passages.

Salvation & Baptism: Objections Answered

     Just like the Sadducees who concocted difficult-sounding hypothetical arguments to make the doctrine of “resurrection” seem ridiculous (Matthew 22:23-33), some of the leaders of the “faith-only” school of thought have produced what they think are good reasons as to why baptism should not be associated with salvation.  Let’s run through some of them.

     The assumption behind this objection is that baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation, because Jesus promised the thief on the cross next to Him that he would join Him in Paradise and there was no way this guy was going to be baptized before he died on that cross.  I believe this objection is erroneous for two reasons.

     First of all, one of the basic principles of theology is that God’s commandments are “covenant-specific,” that is, what God commands needs to be understood in connection with the covenant that is in force.  God does not do things whimsically, but is a covenant-maker/keeper (Deuteronomy 7:9-10).  Just as no Israelite was required to “believe in Jesus as the Christ” under the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, Christians are not expected to keep the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant,^[1] because that covenant is no longer in effect (Hebrews 8) and it was replaced by the New Covenant that Jesus inaugurated with His death.^[2]  How does this relate to the thief on the cross?  Jesus was born/lived under the Mosaic Law/Covenant (Galatians 4:4-5) so that He could fulfill all of the requirements of the Law (Matthew 5:17,18) and redeem those who lived under the Law (Romans 8:3-4).  Here is the key point - people are not required to keep elements of a Covenant that is not in force at the time and the requirements of the New Covenant, just like the stipulations of a Last Will and Testament, were not “in effect” until AFTER Jesus died (Hebrews 9:15-17).  Thus, the thief on the cross lived and died under the Mosaic Covenant and was not required to submit to Christian baptism, for this was not even commanded by Jesus until after His resurrection (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16) and was not publicly announced until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37-41), another fifty days after Jesus was crucified.  Thus, the thief on the cross was not required to obey a commandment not yet given or terms of a covenant not yet inaugurated or announced.  However, there is another reason this objection is faulty.

     Who says the thief on the cross had not been baptized with the only one in force at the time?  John the baptizer came forth preaching a “baptism of repentance” for those willing to repent and prepare for the Messiah that was about to appear (Matthew 3:11; Acts 19:3-4).  John was commanded by God to perform this baptism for a specific reason - to publicly identify the Messiah (John 1:31-33) - and also it was “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3) for those submitting to it in faith and looking ahead to the Messiah’s coming.  Was John’s baptism for “the forgiveness of sins” for those looking ahead in repentant faith to the saving death/blood of Christ in the same way that those after Pentecost were told that Christian baptism was “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38; 22;16) as they looked back in repentant faith to that saving event?  So it would seem, for Jesus’ death was not just for Church Age believers, but also for obedient-faith covenant members who had lived under the Law in the Mosaic Era (Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 9:15).  Everyone is saved by grace through faith in the sacrificial death of Christ, obeying the covenant in force - OT saints looked ahead in faith to the Coming Messiah and NT saints look back to the death of Christ.  “Forgiveness of sins” was procured by the sacrificial death/blood of Jesus (Matthew 26:28) and it is appropriated by repentant believers in baptism, both John’s and Christian baptism.  Perhaps this is why it was so serious for people to reject John’s baptism, for in so doing they were rejecting God’s justice and purpose (Luke 7:29-30) - and forgiveness of sins through the Messiah.  When Paul encountered disciples of Apollos (who knew only John’s baptism), the issue that came up was not over the forgiveness of sins, which apparently was available through John’s baptism, but whether or not they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-5).  Whereas there is reason to believe that the “forgiveness of sins” was available through John’s baptism for those who believed in the coming Messiah and repented, we know the Holy spirit was not available to believers until after Jesus was glorified (John 7:37-39) and it was “poured out” on Pentecost after Jesus returned to heaven (Acts 2).

     How does this affect the thief on the cross?  When John was baptizing, the Scriptures tell us that “Jerusalem . . . and all Judea” were going out to him to confess their sins and be baptized, even Pharisees, Sadducees, tax-gatherers, and soldiers (Matthew 3:5-7; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:12,14).  Why is it assumed that this thief was not one of those who were baptized by John?  When we meet this guy on a cross next to Jesus, he rebuked the other thief for verbally attacking Jesus, he knew that Jesus was innocent of wrongdoing, and he believed that Jesus was the Messianic king about to enter a heavenly kingdom (Luke 23:39-43).  It would appear that this thief was already a believer with some knowledge and conviction about Jesus and this suggests that he probably had been baptized by John, or maybe even by Jesus’ disciples (John 4:1-2).

     The “thief on the cross” offers no legitimate argument against the role of Christian baptism in the plan of salvation, but is similar to the question of the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-29), who did not believe in the resurrection anyway, but they concocted a situation in which resurrection seemed unreasonable.  So here we have people who do not believe baptism has anything to do with salvation asking about the thief “what about him?”

     This should be an easy one for those able to read Scripture in context.  When you read the Word of God, you need to be open to various possible emphases that can be placed on a passage and change the meaning, with context helping to guide you to the intended meaning.  Was Paul saying that baptism was not important, or was he denying that he had been sent as a special/official “baptizer” in the sense that John had been sent with a special divine commission to be a baptizer (Luke 7:29-30; John 1:31-33)?  Given the strong teaching that Paul delivered elsewhere on the importance and meaning of baptism (Romans 6:3-11; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:9-13), I reject the view that Paul was disavowing the importance of baptism to salvation.  On the other hand, the context in which this verse is found involves a problem of division in Corinth over “who had baptized them,” with people dividing into sects/cliques over “who had baptized them” (1Corinthians 1:10-17).  Baptism is important, but what human assists in that act is NOT important.  I believe this is another intentional (or at least careless) misinterpretation of a text of Scripture to justify denominational doctrine that is not in harmony with original Biblical teaching.

     Actually, I think folks have conflated “receive Him” from John 1:12-13” with Christ dwelling “in your hearts through faith” (Ephesians 3:17).  from Just what does it mean to “receive Christ”?  This phrase has been turned into the specific “salvation event” in itself and came to be one of Billy Graham’s key phrases.  However, when I looked through the many places in the New Testament where it speaks about “receiving” a person in some way,^[3] I could not find any reference in the book of Acts where the Apostles told people “to receive Christ” as though this was the actual salvation or conversion event/process.  Instead, the notion of “receiving” someone simply referred to welcoming or accepting them/their claims, as opposed to rejecting them and not allowing them into your boat or worldview.  I think John 1:11-12 is speaking of generalities rather than the specifics of how one becomes a Christian - either you accept Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah or reject them, with a lot of other things following from which route you take.

     As I look closer at John 1:11-12, I have more reason to doubt that “receiving Christ” is the actual “salvation” event.

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.  He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:10-13)

Jesus came into the world and most of the prepared people (the Jews) did not know Him or accept Him to be the awaited Messiah.  Those who did accept His Messianic claims were thereby given “the right to become children of God” - those who put their trust in His Name and are “born of God.”  So, was John saying that “receiving Christ” is the actual event/means of becoming a Christian or was this a pre-requisite for becoming a child of God?  I tend to go with the latter answer on the basis of the wording of John 1:12 and what I read elsewhere in the New Testament about the “new birth.”  Embracing Jesus’ messianic claim gives you the right to move on and “become” a Christian, whereas “not receiving” rejecting those claims ends the process right there.  If Jesus is the Messiah, then you listen to Him, obey Him, etc., but if He is not the Messiah, then you don’t listen to Him, obey Him, follow Him, etc.  Perhaps this is why the Apostles did not use this phrase “receive Christ” as the specific explanation of “how to become a Christian” anywhere in the book of Acts.  Believing that Jesus is the Christ is the initial decision about His identity/claims that leads a person to then learn from, submit to, obey Him, and become His disciple and a child of God.

     I would agree with that statement to a degree, but you could also say that “blood doesn’t save, Christ saves” or “grace and faith don’t save, Christ saves.”  However, in the larger picture of things, certainly “salvation through Christ” is associated with His shed blood,^[4] was made available because God is gracious (Ephesians 2:5), and requires that we believe Jesus’ blood is sufficient payment for our spiritual sin-debt (Ephesians 2:8-9)!  The writer of Hebrews said that “obeying Jesus” saves (Hebrews 8-9).  The Apostle Peter said that “baptism saves” (1Peter 3:21) and it would appear that our salvation also is dependent on our endurance in the faith (Matthew 24:13; Revelation 2:10).  The question is not whether our faith/salvation is in Jesus or water, the question is “when” does God (according to Scripture) tell us that Jesus’ saving blood (shed “for the forgiveness of sins”) is applied to our faith?  Is “faith” a mystical “instant event” in which all of these things happen, or an ongoing worldview and understanding that submits to God’s instructions and receives His promises where He promises to meet us with them?  “The minute you first believed” - when was that, because my faith grew over several months and still is growing?

     Why should anyone think that the saving power of Christ’s blood (“shed for the forgiveness of sins” - Matthew 26:28) is applied to our faith when we submit to Christian baptism in an attitude of repentance?  Whereas the Apostles of Christ are the only authorized spokesmen that I know of to explain Christian doctrine to us, I am strongly influenced by jesus’ final instruction (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:24-48) and then what the Apostle Peter taught on Pentecost, when asked what guilty believers should do about the death, resurrection, and exaltation Jesus as the Christ (Acts 2:37-41) and later Peter reiterated the “baptism saves” (1Peter 3:21).  This is also what Ananias told Saul of Tarsus to do in order to have his sins “washed away” (Acts 22:16).  You can trust in the words/phraseology of Evangelical and Baptist preachers/teachers if you want to (that we are “saved at the moment we believe” or “by faith alone” - and there are lots of these fellows around), but I would prefer to place my trust in the words of Christ’s Apostles.  Our faith has to meet God’s promises somewhere tangible or we can never be sure “when” it happened.  The New Testament information and understanding of the early Church Fathers indicates that we are “born again/regenerated” at the time our faith meets God’s promise in Christian baptism (John 3:5; Titus 3:5), not because of the physical benefits of the “water-bath” itself (1Peter 3:21), but because that is where God has promised to meet our faith with His promised blessings, as we have instructions from Jesus and His Apostles.

     Naaman - Beware trading in faithful submission to God’s instructions for your own logic on how it ought to work, for this is the exact mistake Naaman made many centuries ago.  Naaman was a Syrian army officer that suffered from leprosy and requested aid from an Israelite prophet.  However, Naaman let his own logic and pride stand in the way of his healing.  When he received the instruction from Elisha on what he should do, he had a problem with the idea that the Jordan River had some special healing power that rivers in his own country didn’t have (2Kings 5:10-12) and in this he was probably logically correct.  It is doubtful that seven dips in the Jordan River would unlock some naturalistic healing property of the water in that particular river.  However, what Naaman was really seeking was not a naturalistic cure, but the healing power of Israel’s God available through His Prophet, Elisha.  Rather than meet God’s power where God’s authorized spokesman told him to meet God, Naaman’s logic revolted at the formula, just as many people today have revolted at the teaching of Peter, Ananias, and Paul on water baptism being a meeting place where God offers forgiveness through our faith in Christ’s saving death/blood.  I don’t believe that the waters of the Jordan River healed Namaan’s leprosy, but I believe God applied the promised blessing when Namaan met God where He offered the blessing and he wasn’t going to get it until he met God on His terms.

     Naaman’s healing was physical, so he had proof through his senses that God’s promise indeed came when he submitted to Elisha’s instructions.  However, forgiveness of sins is not something we physically see or sense, which is why Jesus performed a physical healing to prove something about the forgiveness of sins that could not be proven by human senses (Matthew 9:2-8).  So, how are we to know for sure that our sins are forgiven?  I am left with confidence in God’s word and that God will do what He promises (Romans 4:20-21) when and where He promises to work (Colossians 2:10-13).

     I don’t trust in the waters of baptism for my salvation, but I trust God and His Word about how and when my faith is to meet/receive His promises.  If someone told me to meet them at a particular time and place and they would give me a potload of money, I would meet them there and receive the gift, but I certainly would not go around telling people that by meeting them at a certain time and place I had “worked for/earned” the money - it was a gracious gift, received on the giver’s terms.  This is what I believe the New Testament teaches that we do in baptism - meet the Giver on His terms and receive undeserved gifts (forgiveness and the Holy Spirit).

     On the other hand, I do not understand how anyone can have a valid “assurance of salvation” upon any other basis than trusting the Apostles’ teaching on these matters.  I would like to believe in “salvation by faith alone” because of the many churches that teach this and throngs of people that believe it (and to avoid the criticism we get over our teaching that baptism is a necessary element in salvation), were it not for the fact that the only Biblical teaching I can find on “faith alone” is James’ statement that we are “NOT justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).  I would like to believe that people receive salvation when, in faith, they visit the “mourner’s bench, say a salvation prayer, or bow their head and raise their hand,” but I can’t find Jesus or His Apostles ever teaching or practicing such things.   and the places where the Apostles DID associate salvation/forgiveness of sins with our response to the Gospel in baptism (Acts 2:38-41; 22;16; 1Peter 3:21).  Actually, I could be very comfortable with a lot of religious groups if I could just eliminate a number of Biblical teachings that stand in the way.  However, I know enough Bible to conclude that departing from what God has inspired to be written is a very dangerous path to trod.^[5]

     See my separate article on “Salvation: Faith & Works” for a fuller treatment of this issue.  However, let’s briefly identify several problems with this objection.  First of all, Paul did teach that we are “saved by faith and not by works so there is no reason to boast.”  However, when Paul spoke about “works” that do not save, he never labeled baptism as a “work” and didn’t seem to have any argument with the Apostle Peter who taught that “baptism saves” (1Peter 3:21).  When Paul denied salvation by “works,” he was not thinking of things associated with the New Covenant/Gospel, but often spelled out “works of the Law”^[6] as his concern and those who were trying to find salvation through keeping the Mosaic system rather than through Christ and the Gospel.  My second point, and this is a real shocker for the “faith-only” crowd, is that the only element associated with the Gospel that is ever labeled as a “work” in Scripture is belief (John 6:29)!!!!!

     Third, let’s think about this for a moment.  Of all of the elements that we believe the New Testament writers associated in a conditional sense with salvation, water baptism is the one in which the subject does absolutely nothing but submit!  Sure, God is working as He removes the sin, gives life and the Spirit (Acts 2:38; Colossians 2:11-13), but we passively allow it all to happen - we just hold our breath and wait to be brought up out of the water.  However, “faith” requires preachers to go and speak (Romans 4:14-17), while we listen and have to wrestle with our prior worldview and traditions along with the changes that believing these things will bring to our life.  Faith is also an ongoing mental activity that motivates/directs actions and lifestyle, along with processing all of the temptations/false teachings, and spiritual growth that comes as we read and meditate on God’s word.  There is a lot of work going on in our faith.  Confession involves the knowledge, courage, and vocal activity of speaking what we believe about Jesus before others and may require “giving an answer” for our beliefs (1Peter 3:15).  Repentance and the appropriate deeds that must follow (Matthew 3:8; Acts 26:20) usually is an ongoing struggle, at times a bloody brawl with “the fleshly appetites” and the world we live in.  As I consider all of the elements associated with salvation, I have to say that “baptism” is the one that I would be least likely to label as a ‘work,” unless I had a theological axe to grind and a dogma to defend.

     Don’t just stop with questions about baptism, go ahead and ask the same question with other elements inserted: what about those have never repented? those who have never confessed Jesus to be the Christ?  how about those who have never heard of Christ?  what about those who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ?  How about those who fall away and do not endure?

     First of all, what God does with honest exceptions is His business, but we should build our theology upon what Scripture says rather than our own conclusions about hypothetical questions like this that we concoct for various reasons.  The question above, when asked by people convinced that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, sounds very much like the question the Sadducees asked Jesus about the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-29).  My “smart-aleck” answer would be to have the guy in the desert climb over the fence into that construction site, start up the drag-line and get a hole deep enough that it fills with water and then jump in.  Or the guy killed as he is crossing the street on his way to be baptized - just stop that ambulance and paramedics coming down the street, have them revive him, take him in and baptize him before he goes to the hospital!  And when you ask how I came up with a construction site and paramedics, I will say that I got them in the same place you get a guy in the desert or killed crossing the street - your imagination.

     I guess my honest answer would be that we ought to be more concerned about understanding and obeying Scriptures like Acts 2:37-41 and 22:16 rather than dream up inventive ways to explain them away so as to protect totally non-Biblical notions like “saved by faith alone.”  These verses indicate that our faith contacts Christ’s saving blood in baptism, so what assurance do people have that they are forgiven before/without baptism?  If the “new birth” involves water and the Spirit (John 3:5; Titus 3:5), then why do un-baptized believers think they are “born again” - aren’t they still in the womb?  The safe way is to do all that God commands rather than see how little we can do and still be saved.

     Since Peter taught on Pentecost that believers were not “saved/added” until they responded and were baptized (Acts 2:38-41), should we conclude that he had changed his theology by the time he made it to Cornelius’ home (Acts 10)?  Were Cornelius and his friends “saved” when the Holy Spirit suddenly came upon them and they spoke in other languages!  I would answer “no” to both of these questions.

     First of all, I don’t think the Gospel changed at all.  However, there are three special events involving the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts: (1) the events on Pentecost (Acts 2), the events in Samaria (Acts 8:1-24), and (3) the events in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10).  The consistent testimony of Scripture is that salvation comes by faith in the Gospel Message (Romans 10:14-17; 1Corinthians 1:18,21; 15:1-4), not by a sudden overwhelming by the Holy Spirit.  The account of Peter and Cornelius focuses on the message/words by which they would be saved (Acts 10:32-43,48; 11:13-14), the Gospel message and appropriate instructions about how to respond.  What happened involving the Holy Spirit was unusual even then, for Peter could only compare it with what occurred on Pentecost (“upon us at the beginning” - Acts 11:15) rather to normal things going on as the Gospel spread.  But certainly there has to be some meaning to the special manifestation of the Spirit in this situation and, of course, there is.  The Promised Holy Spirit was to be “poured out on all flesh” (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21).  Keep in mind that all of this unfolded through God’s promise to bring the Messiah out of Israel and Jews conceived of mankind in three levels.  The Jews thought of themselves, somewhat correctly, as those who were “near to God” because of the Law and Covenants, whereas the Gentiles were “far off” (Acts 2:39).  In between, there were the hated Samaritans, who had their own copy of the Pentateuch and rival worship site at Mt. Gerizim (John 4:20) - whereas Gentiles were totally unclean, you could eat Samaritan food if you had to.  What occurred on Pentecost (Acts 2) was God’s testimony that the Spirit had been poured out on the Jews, while what occurred in Acts 8 was God’s testimony that the Holy Spirit was also available to the Samaritans.  When Peter went to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, he knew the trouble that might arise and he took six Jewish Christians with him as witnesses (Acts 10:23; 11:12).  While Peter’s message (the means of salvation - Acts 11:13-14) was being spoken, God interrupted with the visible manifestation of the Spirit and the Jewish witnesses were amazed.  It didn’t take Peter long to get the point, so he turned to the six Jewish Christians with him and asked them if they would oppose the baptism of these Gentile believers in view of what they had seen, which of course they could not, so Peter commanded them to be baptized and they became Christians like everyone else did (Acts 10:44-48).  When he went back to Jerusalem Peter ran into trouble with the rest of his Jewish Christian brethren and had to give an explanation of what he had done - this is what Acts 11:1-18 is all about.  When he finished his explanation, they show us how they understood the meaning of the Spirit’s special manifestation in the home of Cornelius - it was God’s proof that Gentiles also were welcome into the New Covenant (Acts 11:18).  Cornelius and his friends were not saved nor did they receive the indwelling gift of the Spirit by the special manifestation of the Spirit - but it was God’s way of clearly and outwardly defusing the opposition of Jewish Christians to the idea of Gentiles becoming a part of the Church.  This same issue was dealt with one more time in Acts 15.

     This would have been a very strange doctrine during the first several centuries of the Church Age, but somehow it fits right in there in our age.

     This view also does some contortions to make the “water and spirit” in John 3:5 not refer to baptism (early Christians all understood it to be a reference to water baptism).  One of these is to say that “water” refers to natural childbirth, with the water being placental water.  Thus, Jesus was saying that natural childbirth is a requirement for getting into the kingdom?  If  that is so, then what about all of the still-births and aborted babies who did not experience natural childbirth- are they lost?  No, “born of water” was not a phrase that anyone in Jesus’ time used for physical childbirth and this is not what Jesus meant.  Others have said that “water” is really a reference to the Spirit.  Well, that view is also nonsense; because this would have Jesus saying “unless you are born of spirit and spirit” you cannot enter the kingdom of God.  My response is “Ok. I will go along with water meaning spirit if you will agree that spirit means water!”  Do these people ever really think about what they are saying?

     If we are agreed that there is only “one baptism” common to all Christians (Ephesians 4:4-6), then what is it?  Some would argue that the one baptism common to all Christians is the “baptism of the Spirit” and in a sense I can go along with that.  If John was describing the Messiah’s overall role in terms of two baptisms (Holy spirit and fire) involving two major groups of people in Matthew 3:11-12 (also Luke 3:16-17), then I see a parallelism going on there - those baptized in the Holy Spirit are the righteous being gathered into the barn like wheat, while the baptism of fire is the destruction of the unrighteous as chaff is separated out and burned after harvest.  Nowhere in the New Testament discussions of the “baptism of the Spirit” do we get a precise description of this being a mystical, ecstatic private experience - rather, it seems to be a big group thing - you either are baptized by the Spirit or you get the fire (you are either saved or lost).  Paul told the divided believers in Corinth that it was through the work of “one spirit” that they had all been “baptized into one body and made to drink of one Spirit” (1Corinthians 12:13).  From Scripture, what do we learn about people being “baptized into the body of Christ”?  What baptism accompanies the preaching of the Gospel and world-wide disciple making?

     While I can’t tell you much about exactly what the “baptism of the Spirit” is from the places where it is mentioned, I can tell you one thing for sure - the Messiah is the one who does it (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33).  Whatever it is, Jesus is the only One who “baptizes in the Holy Spirit”!  When we come to the Great Commission, we find that Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples” in all nations, by teaching and baptizing people (Matthew 28:18-20).  From what John said about the coming Messiah, I conclude that only He baptizes in the Holy Spirit, so what kind of baptism was He commanding human disciple-makers to perform with new disciples?  There is only one baptism that human disciple-makers can perform on other humans - water baptism in response to the Gospel message and this is what we see Peter urging on Pentecost (Acts 2:37-41), Ananias telling Paul to do (Acts 22:16); occurring as a result of Philip’s ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:12), Peter commanding for the believers in Cornelius’ home (Acts 10:47-48); and Peter’s comment about flood water and baptism (1Peter 3:21).  It was by the “One Spirit” that Jesus gave the Gospel instructions to the Apostles (Acts 1:2), this same Spirit “convicts” believers who hear the message with faith (John 16:7-8), and it is this same Spirit that comes to indwell every baptized believer (Acts 2:38-41; Ephesians 1:13-14).  This makes good sense of 1Corinthians 12:13 and John’s comment about the Messiah being the one who baptizes with the Spirit.  The whole ministry of Christ, the Great commission instructions to the Apostles, the Spirit’s confirmation that Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles are all welcome in the New Covenant - all of this is the “baptism of the Spirit” and the gathering of the wheat into the Lord’s barn.  Water baptism, as a part of the commanded response to the Gospel, IS the Holy Spirit’s “baptism” and the one that true Christians have participated in for almost 2,000 years.

     “Outward sign of an inward grace” - This is human theologizing talking, not the Word of God.  You will not find this kind of lingo anywhere in Scripture, for it was crafted to justify denominational beliefs.  I wish people knew the word of God as well as they know and spout these little clichés that human theologians have dreamed up.

     I can find Scriptures that mention being “baptized into Christ” (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27) and “baptized into one body” (1Corinthians 12:13), but I can’t find anything in Scripture about water baptism being how you become a member of a particular local congregation.  I was baptized into Christ and into His Body, the Church, but not into a particular congregation.

     My Oh my, how did the church ever make it through 1900 years before Billy Graham showed up?  My grandfather once told me that he didn’t think you needed to be baptized, because “Billy Graham doesn’t preach it!”  Did I miss something?  I wasn’t aware that Billy Graham was the ultimate standard for Christian Doctrine and had replaced the Apostles that Jesus authorized to speak for Him and function as the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:19-22).  Have I been missing out all of these years - reading and believing my Bible when I should have been listening to Billy?  I don’t think so.

     I’m going to point you to Galatians 1:6-9, where Paul said that any angel, apostle, or man that changes the original Gospel in any way is eternally cursed!  But you say, “Billy has done a lot of good!”  Has he?  Giving people less than the whole counsel of God (which the Apostles were not allowed to do - Acts 5:19-20) is not what I would call doing good.^[7]

     The common argument here is that it is “good Greek” to translate the Greek preposition eis as “because of” instead of “for/unto/in order to obtain.”  In other words, Peter was saying “repent and be baptized because you already have been forgiven of your sins.”  Then, the commentator will cite Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:42 where eis does have that meaning.  I have two objections to this reasoning.  First, whereas “faith-only” advocates can find two places in the New Testament where eis is best interpreted “because of,” what you usually don’t hear is that eis is used 1773 times in the New Testament and only four of these might mean “because of.”  In the VAST majority of uses, eis is a preposition showing transition from one place or state into another.  Second, if the people Peter was saying this to were already forgiven/saved prior to baptism, then why did Peter continue to urge them to “be saved” until they accepted what he said and submitted to baptism, after which they were “added” (Acts 2:37-41)?

Should We Edit the Word to Support Our Beliefs?

     Would the Apostles be welcome in Evangelical churches today? - I have had encounters with people who seem to have as much trouble deciphering New Testament passages about baptism as Belshazzar's wise men had with the writing on the wall (Daniel 5:5-8)!  I have wondered at times if Jesus and the Apostles would be welcome preaching in many Evangelical crusades and churches today, since some of what they wrote is regarded as heresy today when we teach it (or at least as "controversial").  Maybe they would be allowed to preach, but when it came down to the "invitation" they would be asked to step aside so that people would be spared their "repentance & baptism" errors and would instead be offered the chance to respond to the Gospel by saying "the salvation prayer" or "raising their hand for salvation."  If they preached what they wrote in the New Testament, Jesus' Apostles would be shown to the door and never invited back.  Concepts like “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on His name" (Acts 22:16), "now baptism saves you" (1Peter 3:21) may be viewed as heretical in the current religious culture, but they were not foreign to Jesus and His Apostles.  Because of his Pentecost response on how to be saved (Acts 2:37-41), the Apostle Peter would certainly not be invited to participate in a Billy Graham, Bill Bright, or Campus Crusade for Christ evangelistic service.  From what he told Paul, Ananias (Acts 22:16) would not be welcome either.  If you actually read their letters to early Christians, it appears that the Apostles Paul (Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27) and Peter (1Peter 3:21) would not fit in very well with evangelicals, because they certainly seem to have believed and preached that water baptism did have something important to do with salvation.

     So, I have an idea - (1) if all of the big evangelical churches are going to be "Bible-based," (2) what they are teaching disagrees with Scripture, and (3) they aren't going to change their theology to agree with the wording of Scripture, then maybe it is high time that they go ahead and re-write some of those “controversial verses,”^[8] so that the wording of the Bible is more in harmony with what they keep telling us that the Bible “teaches.”

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven, so Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, proclaiming salvation by faith alone and telling people that baptism doesn’t have anything to do with salvation or becoming My disciple.  Go thou and be successful, and don’t worry about what my little brother James said about ‘faith alone’ in his letter.”  (Matthew 28:18-20 McCoy’s per-Version)

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"  And Peter said to them, "I want about 3,000 of you to get up out of your seats and come forward and stand in front of this platform, and I will pray with you and give you some literature to help you in your new Christian life.  And if you came with a caravan, don’t worry, the camels will wait for you."  (Acts 2:37-38 MpV)

 Or try this perversion of Acts 2:37 and what followed,

 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"  And Peter said to them, "What Campbellite preacher got ahold of you and told you that you needed to DO anything? - God's already done it all!  But if you've never really ever said 'yes" to Jesus, then I want every head bowed and every eye closed and right there where you are, I want you to slip your hand up into the air and just receive Jesus into your heart by faith and be saved.”  (Acts 2:37-38 MpV)

 Ananias looked at Paul and said, “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”  And Paul responded, “Ananias, I can’t do that!  What will that do to the theology of all of those 20th century preachers who are going to tell people that I was saved on the road to Damascus?”  (Acts 22:16-17 MpV)

 “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, but this verse is going to be a real embarrassment to a lot of 20^th century preachers who will claim that baptism does not save!”  (1Peter 3:21 MpV)

These perversions hurt don’t they?  If Scripture was re-written to accord with what is popularly believed and preached, these wouldn’t be far off.  We again find ourselves in a situation where much of what is going on in the name of “Christianity” is obviously different from what God’s unchanging Word says - and that ought to concern us.  Why is it that we are viewed as “off-base” in our teaching, when evangelicals ignore and contradict the passages that disagree with their beliefs, but all we do is point people to Scripture?  It is because much of what is going on in the name of Christ did not originate with either Christ or His Apostles and isn't compatible with what they said.  This is similar to ancient Israel's problems, when Isaiah noted that the Law and Testimony was the unchanging standard for evaluating the various messages being delivered to Israel and if what people said differed from the Law, then there was no spiritual light in them (Isaiah 8:19-20) and Jeremiah noted that Israel was unwilling to go back to the old truths of God (Jeremiah 6:16).  True revival always came with a return to Scripture and giving up man-made traditions for the original message of God!

Are we hearing “Another Gospel”?

     When people go to an evangelical crusade, such as many did to hear Billy Graham, the invitation they heard was for people to get out of their seats, come forward to the platform, and there Billy would pray with them and give them some literature.  Other crusade leaders tell people to say a “salvation prayer” or “close their eyes and raise their hand to receive Christ.”  I know by experience that any time you compare what these guys preach with Scripture that it makes some people uncomfortable.  However, few seem to be willing to consider the most obvious question - “Does God approve of these alterations to the original Gospel”?  Who should we listen to, the New Testament writings or the current famous preacher who tells people to do something different “in Jesus’ Name”?  Many of the guys who offer these alternatives claim to subscribe to the Reformation principle of “sola Scripture” (the Bible only!).  Whenever I bring this issue up to evangelical folks, I suddenly become the “bad guy” for even bringing up such questions.  The ensuing conversation goes something like this,

Indignant evangelical (IE): “Are you suggesting that people who go forward in these crusades are not saved unless they are baptized?”

Me: “What makes you think that people who do not obey the commands of Jesus and the Apostles’ Gospel are saved?  The Bible says that obeying Jesus and obeying the Gospel is pretty important (Luke 6:46; Hebrews 5:8-9; 2Thessalonians 1:7-8)?”

IE: “Yes, but those preachers proclaim the name of Jesus and they are so successful that God must be blessing their ministries!  The people who go forward are very sincere.”

ME: “So, is sound Christian doctrine determined on the basis of what Scripture teaches or what “successful human preachers” teach as long they can draw a big audience and/or sell lots of books?  The false prophets that troubled Israel in Jeremiah’s time delivered their own words in the Name of the Lord^[9] also, but true prophets simply deliver God’s Word to people (Jeremiah 23:28)!  Shouldn’t Gospel preachers continue to present what the inspired writers delivered to us - the “standard of sound words” (2Timothy 1:13) from the Apostles?  And are people saved by their own ‘sincerity” (regardless of the content believed) or by sincerely believing in Jesus as Savior/Lord and obeying His words?”

IE: “You are being legalistic.  Actually, I don’t really think doctrine is very important, because it just causes arguments like this.  Why can’t we all just love Jesus and trust in Him?”

ME: “But everybody who ‘believes in Jesus’ believes some kind of content about Jesus, salvation, and Christianity - where does this content come from and is it valid and true?  How do you determine what is ‘true’ about Jesus and Christianity?  Do we trust what Scripture teaches or whatever is taught by men who are good at drawing a crowd?  Paul told Timothy that God wants all people to be saved as they come to a knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:3,4) and to be concerned about what he taught, because it affected his own salvation and the salvation of those who listened to him (1Timothy 4:16).  Shouldn’t we be concerned about whether or not people hear and believe all of God’s truth as it was delivered and recorded in Scripture?”

IE: “Well, you’ll never convince me that baptism has anything to do with salvation, because my pastor doesn’t believe that and he is a very nice man.  Besides, our church doesn’t teach that baptism has anything to do with salvation and it is bigger than your church, so God must be blessing us.”

     While such conversations may seem fruitless, the issues are important.  Are we saved by “faith in the truth” or by the “sincerity” of our beliefs no matter what they are?  The issue of believing and loving “truth” was no minor matter to the Apostle Paul,

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.  (2Thessalonians 2:13)

that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.  And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.  (2Thessalonians 2:9-12)

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:3-4)

     If the original Gospel was not to be changed in any way by anybody (Galatians 1:6-9), then should we not be concerned when obvious changes are made to how people are told to “respond” to the message about Christ?  We read nothing in the New Testament about “salvation prayers” or “hand-raising” as how one responds to the Gospel.  Charles Finney in the 1800’s invented the “mourners’ bench,” where people would come forward and try to “pray through” - if they felt good about it, then they were told that they had made it and were saved.  In his writings, Finney admitted that he had substituted this “mourner’s bench” for baptism as how people respond to the Gospel.^[10]

     At this point, I must ask the question, “by what authority do men like Finney change the Gospel in any way?”  They do not hold any Christ-given authority to do so and were not listed in the “foundation” of the church (Ephesians 2:19-22).  Were we not told by the Apostle Paul that there would be no authorized changes to the original Gospel - neither by angels, the Apostles themselves, or by any man (Galatians 1:6-9)?  So, what should we think about these changes to the most important issue facing men and women - the issue of eternal salvation through Jesus?

     Furthermore, how does anyone know that any of these alterations in how the Gospel is received are acceptable in the sight of God?  When we present Scripture to people, some see the problem right away, but rather than submit to Christ's inspired Word they get defensive and ask “Are you saying that people who believe in Jesus and say a salvation prayer or raise their hand to receive Christ are not saved?” I cannot help but reply “How can you be so sure that they are saved, when they have listened to and obeyed the words of men rather than the Word of God?”

     This is the same issue that people have faced since the beginning - who are you going to listen to - God or other creatures?  Even though Scripture is pretty clear, many just don’t have the courage to admit that humans who have not obeyed Scripture might be wrong, but they have little hesitation in accusing us of being wrong when all we do is point to Scripture!

     Adam and Eve faced this problem in the Garden - God said one thing, Eve remembered it poorly, and Satan contradicted what God said.  Israel faced this question for a thousand years as they wrestled with what to make of their Canaanite neighbors and what they believed.  I imagine something like the following conversation must have occurred between Israelites many times between 1400-586 B.C.,

“Do you mean to tell me that the Canaanites are evil and are not worshipping the same god that we do?  They must be worshipping the same God, because they also call their god “el,” they have similar temples to worship in and animal sacrifices, and they have religious festivals tied to the agricultural calendar.  And you have to admit, they aren’t as hung up about old-fashioned sexual boundaries as we are, but their crops sure do grow well and how else could that happen except by God’s blessing?  Who are you to judge them and say that they are wrong?  Quit being so legalistic and start loving your fellow man!  Does it really matter if the Canaanite men refuse to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses?  Isn’t that just our particular religious tradition?  I don’t believe that any of this stuff has anything to do a person’s relationship with God.  C'mon, loosen up and celebrate diversity, brother!”

Such is our struggle also when we reverse the order of the two greatest commandments (Matthew 22:36-40) and change God’s Word to accommodate what is going on around us rather than allow it to change us.  If you have to choose between God and even the rest of humanity, you better obey God!

"We must obey God rather than men.”  (Acts 5:29)

     An Encounter with the Word - I remember a scheduled discussion I had, some years ago (1977-78), with two earnest evangelical believers about the "faith-only" crusade they helped to promote in Cadillac, Michigan.  I had written to them that I was concerned that the platform prayer "decision time" was probably not (according to Scripture) enough to convey forgiveness of sins to those folks who came forward.  As they were friends of  several of the people in my small congregation, they decided that they needed to talk with me so that they could find out what I was teaching and keep me from leading their friends astray.

     A few days later, at the appointed time, we met in the home of one of our members and a mutual friend of theirs to discuss this.  At first, the two men and I laid down some ground rules - Scripture only and no hypothetical exceptions used as "proof" of anything.  They had no problem with this approach, so I just took them through the Gospel "Great Commission" accounts, the conversion accounts in the book of Acts, and then into the pertinent comments in the New Testament letters concerning conversion and baptism.  We were sailing along pretty well and no objections were raised by either man to anything I said about the Scriptures.  But, as we reached 1Peter 3:21, their two wives showed up and it didn’t take long for them to catch the drift of what the New Testament writers were saying.  As we got to 1Peter 3:21, one of the gals (who ran a women's prayer breakfast) asked me "are you saying that when we have women say the salvation prayer that they might not be forgiven yet?"  I replied, "I'm not saying anything but what I find in Scripture - what are you going to do with Acts 2:38-41; 22:16; and 1Peter 3:21?"  With tears streaming down her face, she replied, "I'm not going to do anything with those verses, I'm just going to trust in the blood."  And with that, they indignantly stood up and let their husbands know that it was time for all of them to leave, and so ended what started out as fruitful searching of the Scriptures.

     Another long-time friend of these two men, a member of my congregation, and a fellow that I worked for part-time in construction, was present during this discussion and so I asked him a couple of days later what he thought about that meeting.  He said he was a bit surprised and disappointed that these two guys could encounter Scripture and agree with what I was saying about the passages looked at, but when their wives became upset and declared that they were going to just ignore Scripture verses that didn’t fit into their belief system anywhere, these men just followed their wives out the door and never revisited the issue.  I guess, for some folks, Scripture is authoritative only where it supports what is already believed.

     I did not learn my basic theology concerning salvation from any Christian Church/Church of Christ preacher, congregation, college, or publication.  I learned it from reading the Bible and that only and then chose an earthly church fellowship that believed the same things I had found in Scripture by my own study.  When I read some of the attempts to advocate salvation by “faith alone” and neutralize and refute what the Scripture passages discussing baptism teach (and rather plainly), I am amazed at the inventiveness of people and their ability to justify their own cherished notions, sometimes even contradicting what Scripture says where it differs with their wording and theological concepts.  It seems to me that what occurred in Genesis 2:15-17 and Genesis 3:1-6 is still being replayed often - God says something rather plainly, but then people forget part of it, change it, and along comes the Devil to contradict what God said and offer blessings to those who do their own thing - and people still buy that hook, line, and sinker!  Evangelicals advocate salvation by “faith alone” and Jesus’ half-brother James said “not by faith alone” (James 2:24).  Evangelicals say that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, while the Apostle Peter said that “baptism saves” (1Peter 3:21).  We face the same problem as Adam and Eve - who are we going to listen to, believe, and obey?

----------------------------------------------------------

Charles E. McCoy

2005/12/12

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org