Exceptions to Baptism (Part 1)
When liberals discuss baptism, they often overlook the purpose for it, which is to have sins forgiven. They talk about it being an expression of faith, the new birth, the putting on of Christ, and other things, but they omit the description of it being “for the forgiveness of sins.” This approach allows them to bring Baptists and all others who immerse people into the fellowship—even though they believe they are saved prior to baptism.
But this broadening of fellowship is not good enough because it fails to embrace those who sprinkle infants and adults. The goal of liberals is to include all (or nearly all) of those who espouse Christianity as part of the church—those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, affirm that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. If these beliefs were the only requirements to please God, the number of “Christians” in the world would still only lie between 25% and 33%, far more than a “few” (Matt. 7:13-14).
However, such a broad definition of a “Christian” fails to take into consideration other important factors—such as the way God says to become a Christian—and whether those who confess Christ are worshiping in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Jesus condemned those who taught as doctrine the commandments of men. Christians must, therefore, also ask, “What is truth?” and “What pleases God?”
Some of us have wondered for many years what rationale existed for fellowshipping those who use sprinkling in place of baptism, and now, thanks to Wes McAdams, we have an answer. In late October of 2025, he posted on his podcast (Radically Christian) an interview with Dr. Bobby Harrington of Renew.org. The title is: “Baptism: What Does the Bible Actually Say?”
Background
Before we get to the main point, we want to notice the background of Dr. Harrington. He was discipled at Harding University by a professor of French who had migrated north from Abilene Christian University. At Harding, he met his wife, who was from a congregation where Thomas B. Warren preached. Then he went on to Harding Graduate School; he was in the same graduating class as Mike Cope, whose wife was roommates with his wife at Harding University.
Afterwards, he became “Senior Minister” at the Calgary Church of Christ from 1987 to 1994. After spending three years with the Otter Creek Church of Christ in Nashville, he established the Harpeth Hills Christian Church and devoted himself to planting other churches. In 2011, he earned the Doctor of Ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He founded Discipleship.org in 2014 and Renew.Org in 2017. He did not say why he became affiliated with the Christian Church.
Baptism (Is, Is Not) For the Forgiveness of Sins.
Harrington is the author of a brand new booklet that sports the lengthy title of: Baptism According to the Scripture: A Clear, Short, and Unfiltered Guide. The main point he makes in this book as well as in the podcast is: “Immersion as an expression of faith and commitment to, uh, King Jesus or Jesus Christ is for forgiveness of sins.” Does this sound good? He follows up this affirmation with one that seems to contradict it.
What I did not say—I want to be careful. I did not say that baptism is for the remission of sins. And I did not say that because that’s what John the Baptist taught, according to Luke 3:3. Uh, John the Baptist had a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And, uh, we know that in Acts 19, those who were baptized by John the Baptist’s baptism had to be baptized in the name of Jesus because they did not have the Holy Spirit. Or as they said, “We’ve not even heard about the Holy Spirit.”
Is the reader confused? After stating that “immersion…is for the remission of sins,” he also declares that he did not say “baptism is for the remission of sins.” Your congenial editor may be wrong, but that sounds like what the logical Brother Warren would call a contradiction. Apparently, the difference is that with Jesus’ baptism comes the Holy Spirit, while He was not involved in John’s baptism.
The expression, for the forgiveness of sins (in the Greek—eis aphesin hamartion) is found in four texts. It is, of course, in Acts 2:38, but it also appears in Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Matthew 26:28, in which Jesus said that His blood was shed for the remission of sins. He does not add here that the disciples would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And what that phrase means has at least three main interpretations, which we will notice later. Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins, period. John baptized for the remission of sins, period. Jesus baptized for the remission of sins, period. Baptism is involved in people becoming Christians today, period. Whatever the gift is, one receives it as a result of being baptized—it is not the reason to be baptized.
The Problem with Acts 2:38
Dr. Harrington says there are two things wrong with “championing baptism for the remission of sins.” First, it causes some people to think “that if you’re not baptized for the remission of sins, you can’t have your sins forgiven.” That’s a problem? It makes sense to most of us. What else is anyone supposed to think? “If you don’t have faith in Jesus, you are lost in your sins.” Do you need faith in order to be saved? Yes. If you’re not baptized in order to have your sins forgiven, then you are lost in your sins because they have not been forgiven. Does this point seem complicated to anyone?
But even more important, says Dr. Harrington, “it cuts off baptism from the gospel and cross and atoning sacrifice of Jesus.” Furthermore, he charges that we separate baptism from Jesus’ act of atonement and do not connect it to His dying on the cross. Hogwash! When we study with non-Christians—before we ever get to the subject of baptism—we emphasize the fact that our sins put Jesus on the cross and that He died for them. We always explain what Jesus has done, and then we discuss the way in which we must respond to His atoning sacrifice. Consider any of the major Bible studies that brethren use in teaching prospective converts, and they all take this approach. Brethren should not believe that we are guilty of what someone says we are just because they say so. Where is the proof?
A Brief Pause
We are almost up to Dr. Harrington’s rationale for accepting the un-immersed as brethren, but first we want to point out that, for all of Wes McAdam’s endorsements, such as when he talks about Dr. Harrington’s great work in the kingdom of God, this man is just another denominational preacher that fellowships those in denominations. He left the churches of Christ in order to work with the Christian Church, which accepts denominational views on various matters.
One such moment was when Harrington said that he was an elder and lead pastor. First, an elder is a pastor, according to the Scriptures, and, second, among elders there is no such thing as a Lead Pastor in the Bible. Language such as this does not bother Dr. Harrington. Of course, he meant he was a pastor in the unscriptural, denominational way people use the expression. He also spoke of laymen, thus endorsing a clergy-laity division that the Bible knows nothing about.
Normative
The key word throughout the remainder of the discussion is normative. Below, Dr. Harrington is explaining what the normal pattern regarding conversion is. Then he claims that other situations meet with God’s approval.
…this was the normative method in the New Testament, uh, and you explain the Christ-centered focus of it and then you allow that it’s normative, uh, but that God can make exceptions. I just find that most people I’m able over time to win ‘em over with the text on that.
What is he saying here? He is explaining what he thinks is a better way of teaching baptism—that people being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins was normative—but that God makes exceptions. What? That’s what he said, and McAdams agrees. He adds the following words.
If they think you’re saying, “You’re, you’re lost and going to hell if you didn’t do it this way, uh, once you show it differently, I find, generally, people are very receptive to it.
McAdams summarized the position just espoused in the following way: “You said baptism is the normative time of conversion, but you deal with deviations from the norm. Do the deviations destroy our argument that baptism is necessary?” Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what the answer was? Dr. Harrington replied that God has special circumstances. No Scripture was given to establish that point, but Harrington continued:
So, um, some people will take it that you’ve sort of opened a Pandora’s box. I think if you don’t, uh, allow for that, uh, you’ve got more problems,
It’s the Holy Spirit Again
Seriously? And what might those be? So, then, there are normative conversions—and abnormative (so it’s not a word; it fits) conversions. What are these deviations? Below is Dr. Harrington’s explanation for the deviations.
God gives salvation and the Spirit as He sees fit. You don’t get to decide, and I don’t get to decide, uh, if God is going to look at the heart and give the Holy Spirit, okay? Uh, and, uh, on that point, uh, there are people that I can’t believe that God, uh, didn’t give them the Holy Spirit…. There are people, I believe, by the fruit of their lives and their ministries, that even though they weren’t properly baptized, they still have the Holy Spirit.
Yes, the reader did not misunderstand Dr. Harrington. He is affirming that God can save people in some other way besides the normative manner of being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Word says one thing, but the Holy Spirit (who inspired the Word) can do something else—make exceptions. Well, have there been some exceptions in time past? Why, yes, there have been. Dr. Harrington cannot imagine that Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, and Tim Keller (who according to Google is “an American Presbyterian pastor, preacher, theologian, and Christian apologist”) could be lost.
Your congenial editor can—just by reading Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus could imagine—in fact, He insisted that those who prophesied in His name, cast out demons in His name, and did many wonders in His name practiced lawlessness and were sent away from Him. Theologians and humanitarians may greatly aid this world, but if these acts guaranteed them salvation, why would Jesus have needed to die on the cross?
The next article will analyze Dr. Harrington’s use of Scripture in arriving at his conclusions. But before this article draws to a close, it must be reaffirmed that God cannot give a law of pardon (the normative way of becoming a Christian)—and then contradict it. If God could make exceptions, would he have killed Uzzah? This man seems to have had a good motive in reaching forth to steady the ark of the covenant when the oxen stumbled (2 Sam. 6:6-7). But he violated God’s law, and God made no exception to spare him. Nor will He save those who have either refused or neglected to be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins.