Does a Person Need to Know Why He Is Being Baptized? (2)
“What do believers have to understand in order for baptism to be valid, for lack of a better term?” This question was the focal point of a podcast discussion conducted by Wes McAdams of Plano, Texas (see January 1, 2023). Rather than argue from the Scriptures, McAdams has relied on comments from the Gospel Advocate from more than one hundred years ago. David Lipscomb made the comment below.
Any baptism to please man displeases God…. A sectarian baptism is sinful, but a baptism to obey God is not sectarian baptism. It is the baptism of Christ.
McAdams then opined that many re-baptisms are performed to please those who demand it as a condition of fellowship. Paraphrasing Lipscomb, he added that “a baptism to obey God is the best kind of motivation….” Furthermore, he stated again, that the wrong reason for baptism is that they won’t let you in their church unless you do it for their reason.
Really? Both Lipscomb and McAdams have the wrong perspective on the matter (if Lipscomb is being correctly represented). When Lipscomb says that baptism, to please men displeases God, he is correct. No one should be baptized in order to please father or mother, husband or wife, or to please one’s children, for that matter. Neither should anyone be baptized to please any group of religious people.
A sectarian baptism would also be sinful, but what does Lipscomb mean by that? If Baptists require baptism to become a member of the Baptist Church, would not that be sectarian? No one in the first century was baptized to join a Baptist Church (which did not then exist). But is Lipscomb saying that the churches of Christ baptize people in a sectarian sense? More information would be needed to draw such a conclusion.
But what about a baptism done to obey God? Certainly, that reason would not involve a sectarian motive, but it is not the reason Peter gave on Pentecost, either; so one’s teaching would be incomplete. Should not a disciple see why people in the New Testament were baptized? Yes, and his conclusion would be that it was for the forgiveness of sins—not only in Acts 2, but also Acts 22:16. Saul of Tarsus was told to be baptized, which would wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). This was the way to call upon the Lord. Is there anyone in the New Testament who was baptized, not knowing its direct link to salvation?
Those Baptized Again
The way in which McAdams approaches this subject is that he seems to indicate that the churches of Christ are a denomination—and that unless you do what this denomination says, you can’t be a member.
He may not believe that, but this is the way it seems with his comments. Over the years, your congenial editor has baptized many who were baptized previously. In most instances, the request was made without any prompting by anyone. These members were not sure that the baptism that occurred in their youth years might not have been valid. They were not sure that they knew enough or had the right motivation. Thus, they chose to be baptized, convinced that they now knew what they should know.
Some have come out of denominations and knew that their baptism was not valid. In many instances, they were “saved” weeks or months earlier and invited to be baptized along with others after a period of time. All of these were members of a denomination. We never told any of these precious souls they had to be baptized in order to become part of the church of Christ. The question has always been, “For what reason were you baptized?” The pre-eminent question is one of salvation—Is the person saved? Membership will take care of itself once that is resolved.
A few have occasionally thought they were baptized for the right purpose, but we ask them to consider certain things, such as, “How would you have come to that conclusion when the denomination you were attending did not teach the truth regarding salvation? They teach ‘faith only,’ and they teach people that they were already saved before baptism.” This issue is not a battle over, “My church is better than yours, and you need to be baptized here to become one of us.” If it were, it would be sectarian. But such is not the case; our only goal is to help people discern whether or not their baptism was valid.
Members of the Lord’s church do not demand baptism as a condition of fellowship; the Scriptures teach that baptism saves people (1 Peter 3:21). It cannot save those who already think they are saved. Suppose that when Ananias came to Saul, the penitent persecutor told him, “I’ve already been baptized.” “Wha-what?” stammered a shocked Ananias. “When?”
“While I was waiting for you,” Saul answers. “I’ve been around Christianity enough to know that everyone is baptized. So I figured, ‘Why wait?’ I went ahead and was baptized while you were on your way here.”
“But why,” Ananias asks, “were you baptized?” “What difference does it make?” Saul replies. “Sinners are baptized, and that’s what I did. Is there a problem?”
Now what does Ananias say? If he were to agree with McAdams, he would say. “That’s fine, Saul. To be baptized again in order to have forgiveness of sins would just make your baptism sectarian.” Fortunately, Saul did not preempt Ananias’ visit, and he arose and was baptized to wash away his sins.
Design
After finishing with Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate, McAdams says, “And so we’re putting our faith in that design—our faith in that pattern. That is a problem. That is a very serious theological problem.” Now why is it a mistake to trust God’s plan? When God says He will remove our sins in baptism when we have faith in Him and have repented of our sins, why would it be a mistake to trust in Him to do what He promised? Let’s see how this attitude flies.
Noah and his family, along with all the animals, have been on the ark for more than a year. As they exit from the ark, they find a village nearby, with fifty people living there and tending a flock of sheep. Noah is shocked to see other survivors of the worldwide flood—especially after he spent 100 years building the vessel from which they had now emerged. He asks the village chief, “How did you manage to stay dry and not drown. The man says, “Oh, that’s easy. You had faith in the pattern that involved ark-building, which is a very serious theological problem, you know. We just trusted that God would save us. And he did.” Absurd? Sure, but this appears to be McAdams’ argument.
Did Israel trust in God or in God’s plan of crossing the Red Sea on dry ground to get away from Pharaoh? Is there some reason that it cannot be both? God drew up the plan and arranged it; therefore, to trust in His plan is to trust in Him Who devised the plan. If not, why not?
K.C. Moser
Once again, to establish his case, McAdams does not go to the Scriptures but to K.C. Moser, who wrote a book called The Way of Salvation, first published in 1932. Like the podcast under review, Moser’s book teaches some truth but a lot of error. An excellent review of this book and another that Moser wrote, The Gist of Romans, constituted an entire chapter in the 2010 lectureship book published by Contending for the Faith, titled Profiles in Apostasy, #1. The review of Moser was written by Dub McClish; it is thorough and may be found on pages 88-110.
The podcast treats Moser as though he were the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in fact he has been refuted by sound brethren for decades. Either McAdams doesn’t know this, or he simply desires to ignore it. He cites Moser as teaching that our faith must be in the Man—not in the Plan, which should be absurd to most people even on the surface of it. McClish writes:
K.C. Moser is the principal source in the church of the Man-or-the-Plan (better, Demote-the-Plan-of-the-Man) contention of the 1960s. In other words K.C. Moser was a liberal way before liberalism was “cool.” (99).
McClish cites Foy Wallace on Moser’s book:
In fact, Ben M. Bogard, the reputed Baptist debater declared his acceptance of the Moser book with endorsement in his Baptist paper, and paraded it in debate against our own debaters who were compelled to publicly repudiate it (Wallace, The Present Truth, 1036) (McClish, page 103).
McClish comments on the irony that Baptists can recognize Baptist doctrine when they see it, but certain brethren can’t (103)! Apparently, Wes McAdams is one of those. Why do people like him feel a need to choose one thing over another—the Man or the plan? The plan came from “the Man.” Who won the battles Israel fought to obtain the Promised Land? God did, but it was His plan for the soldiers to show up on the battlefield!
Earning Salvation
Moser and McAdams actually are teaching Baptist doctrine by denying the essentiality of God’s plan. What do Baptists generally say concerning baptism? “It’s not part of salvation because it’s a work, and you can’t earn salvation.” And how do we usually answer? We go to Colossians 2:12, where Paul writes that we are “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”
Why is Paul putting his faith in God’s plan (baptism) instead of Jesus? God devised the plan—not man. We do not think that by being baptized we have somehow earned salvation. We recognize that God is the one that did the work of removing our sins through the blood of Christ. We didn’t invent the plan; we just follow it!
When Naaman emerged from his seventh dipping in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5), did he walk away and say, “Look what I’ve done”? Is this a Little Jack Horner situation, where Naaman concludes, “What a good boy am I”? He knew that his leprosy was cured by following God’s plan. McAdams insists that our faith should be in the Man—not in the plan. Our faith is in the Man Who gave us the Plan. That’s the reason we know that the Plan works—because it came from God and not humans. Denominational plans for salvation omit baptism for the forgiveness of sins; they were devised by men.
“I have no confidence in my baptism,” says McAdams. “I trust in Jesus.” Most brethren have confidence in their baptism because they trust in Jesus. Again, he says, “Your confidence shouldn’t come from what you did, but come from what Jesus did for you.” We are confident in what we did (in being baptized) because the One Who died for us is the One who told us to do it (Mark 16:15-16).
The way McAdams argues his case implies that he thinks that we earn our salvation, which is preposterous. Jesus also taught men to repent (Luke 13:3). When we do, are we trusting in the Man or the Plan? What those who affirm Moser’s proposition cannot seem to understand is that we can trust in the Man and in the Plan. Is that so hard to understand?