Does a Person Need to Know Why He Is Being Baptized? (1)

Some errors—though soundly defeated—just never seem to ultimately go away. If they are defeated in the 1930s, they surface again in the 1980s. If they are defeated again, they resurface in the 2020s. And now with podcasts, it’s easy to put as much error out as a person has time to dispense. Much of it is coming from the Radically Christian folks. No sooner had we written five articles in response to their refusal to call the use of instrumental music sinful than it was discovered that a previous podcast challenges the truth concerning salvation. It was affirmed that a person can be taught incorrectly, but their baptism can be valid anyway. Is that a misrepresentation? This article will set forth their teaching from their own words. Perhaps the reader will conclude that their website is radically unchristian.

The Question

A member of their audience sent them the following question to discuss, and Wes McAdams of Plano, Texas, did most of the answering.

What do believers have to understand about baptism in order for their baptism to be valid, for lack of a better term? In other words, if someone is seeking after God and sees baptism as a command from God, and wants to obey that, but they don’t understand that baptism is the point at which we are saved, does that misunderstanding invalidate that baptism? Are they just getting wet at that point even though obedience to God is their motivation?

McAdams says this is a great question, which is true. In fact, it is a vital one because a person’s salvation is at stake. The careful listener will know immediately what McAdams will teach in this podcast the moment he says that he has changed his views on this matter over the years. Translation: He used to believe the truth but now holds a more liberal view.

In contrast to this attitude was the one that Brother Guy N. Woods displayed in the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman years ago when he affirmed that he had not in forty years changed any substantive view he had held as a young man. Today, fewer and fewer preachers can make that claim. The fact is the Bible has not changed; they have. Most of today’s compromisers were taught correctly; they have simply left off “contending for the faith” (Jude 3).

A Good Beginning

McAdams sets forth the truth concerning when a person is saved—before he takes issue with himself. He argues that baptism is the point at which we are saved. He reminds his audience that the listener wanted to know, “Does the person have to understand that baptism is the point at which we are saved?” McAdams replies: “We have to affirm that, first of all. We have to affirm that baptism is the point at which we are saved.” That response sounds good, and it would have been an ideal place to terminate the podcast, but then the speaker does his best to undermine what he has just affirmed.

Acts 2:38

Believe it or not, the argument is made that the words, in the name of Jesus Christ, are more important than the phrase, for the forgiveness of sins. Who said that? What Biblical principle of interpretation says that one part of a verse is more valuable than another part? From whence cometh such “wisdom”? Can McAdams also tell us which is more important in Acts 2:38—repentance or baptism?

One could make the case that the opposite is true—if one compares Acts 2:38 with Acts 22:16. The latter passage has Ananias asking Paul: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The reader notices that Ananias, like Peter, affirms that one should be baptized so that sins can be washed away. But Ananias does not mention the phrase, in the name of Jesus Christ. One can then make the case that the washing away of sins is actually more important than in the name of Jesus by a 2-1 margin. And that’s not even counting what John writes—that Jesus washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev. 1:5)!

But this is foolishness—trying to establish which words might be more important than other words. Both concepts are essential; why try to rank them—unless it is to downplay baptism?

“What If You Think You’re Saved?”

Now we come to an explicit situation. What if a person is baptized but does not understand baptism’s purpose? Below is a quote from the podcast.

What if you don’t understand that? What if you think you’re saved, you think you’re forgiven, you think you’re a Christian and you’re in Christ? And then later you realize, “I’ve never been baptized. I need to be baptized. And you’re baptized because you want to obey God…. You don’t see that as a necessary thing; does that invalidate the baptism? And do you need to be baptized again, if you were baptized not knowing that that’s the point of forgiveness?

The podcast’s answer is no, but before getting to that, let’s notice what is being asked here. Let’s suppose a person grows up in a denomination and is taught that baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. He is taught that he is saved by “faith only.” Maybe he prays a “sinner’s prayer” (not to be found in the Scriptures). Or maybe he prays until he gets a certain feeling that God has accepted him—and forgiven him of his sins. Now he is confident of his salvation. At some future point he decides to be baptized. It may be to join the denomination he has been attending, or it may be because Jesus was baptized. Or maybe it is viewed as a command he should keep.

But whichever of these reasons it might be, it is not for the forgiveness of sins, which he will readily admit. And we are supposed to believe this individual is saved? He might some day be on stage affirming a debate proposition that baptism is not for the remission of sins, but McAdams wants to argue that he’s saved anyway. What kind of gobbledygook is this?

Obedience

Is everyone a Christian who is baptized to obey God? What about Mormons? Are Pentecostals baptized to obey God? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses baptized to obey God even though they deny it is for the forgiveness of sins? Don’t children 6, 7, or 8 years old want to be baptized because Jesus said to do it?

McAdams certainly agrees with Rubel Shelly on this issue. He wrote the following on this subject in his book, I Just Want to be a Christian, which was published in 1984. Will McAdams agree with where Shelly goes with his philosophy?

I see no reason to think one has to understand “for the remission of sins” in order to be baptized scripturally, for I do not think there is one right reason for being baptized. I would say that one must be baptized for a right reason in order for his baptism to be acceptable.... (emphasis GWS).

There are sincere, knowledgeable, devout Christians scattered among the various denominations (132).

Everything that McAdams argues is tantamount to the conclusion stated above. Will he, on a future podcast, accept the logical conclusion of his argument about Christians being in denominations? If he has not thought about that implication, he should.

More on Obedience

Instead of going to the Scriptures to find an answer to the question being discussed, McAdams goes to spiritual leaders from the past to try and establish his case. First, he quotes a question asked of David Lipscomb in the Gospel Advocate, probably over 100 years ago. Since he read from the quote, he could have told us the date in which it appeared in the publication—so that we could read the entire context, but he did not see fit to share that information. Below is the question as it appeared sometime during Lipscomb’s lifetime.

Would I do wrong to be baptized again since I have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost by a Methodist? I did not know at the time that baptism was for the remission of sins. But I did it to obey God…. Is it right to make a knowledge of baptism for the remission of sins a test of fellowship?

According to McAdams, Lipscomb replied thus:

One led to be baptized because he desires to do the will of God is moved by love—the higher motive, that is, the motive that moved Jesus to be baptized. It is the motive that best pleases God. For a man to ignore and reject baptism because he was led to it by love for God and a desire to obey Him and displace it by a lower or lesser motive, this begins in the Spirit and ends in the flesh. He repudiates the higher service for that less pleasing to God.

Can one be motivated by love—and yet be wrong? Can one be sincere—and yet be wrong? Did the Samaritans love God? Didn’t they firmly believe they should worship on their own mountain instead of in Jerusalem? Yet Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know…” (John 4:22). Harsh? Yes, but it was true.

What about Saul of Tarsus? He loved God and was quite zealous for the religion he grew up in. He thought he was obeying and pleasing God. Was he saved? No, these two examples do not have anything to do with baptism—but rather to show that love and sincerity, in general, are not enough, by themselves, to save anyone. Obedience, like worship, must be in spirit and in truth (John 4:24; cf. Joshua 24:14-15).

So. Let’s take an example involving baptism. The disciples (as the text calls them) in Ephesus had been baptized by John’s baptism—probably at a time when it was no longer valid (that is, after Jesus died on the cross). Do we have any reason to doubt their sincerity or their love of God? No. Then why did they need to be immersed again? After all, John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4).

“Yes, but now they needed to be baptized in the name of or by the authority of Christ.” Right. But why not just tell them the truth and let them apply it retroactively? If we can apply the purpose for baptism (for the forgiveness of sins) to what was already done, why can we not assign the proper authority to what was previously done? The events may be a little bit out of order, but in both cases (those baptized out of obedience and those in Ephesus) they acted out of love.

“No,” someone responds. “Those baptized by John’s baptism were baptized by the wrong authority.” Okay, how is that fixed? “By doing what Paul did—baptizing them by the authority of Jesus.” Good. So, today, if people are not baptized to have their sins forgiven, then what should be done? Hmm. Baptize them correctly?