Explaining Baptism

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from a woman who was miffed at a four-part series of articles that is available on www.spiritualperspectives.org: "Melton's Skewed View of Salvation" (11-23-97, 11-30-97, 12-7-97, 11-14-97). She began: "I believe you are arguing about the fact that Melton is claiming that baptism is not a prerequisite to being saved? How do you come to the conclusion that it is?" I was tempted to say that, if she had read the four articles, she would have the answer to her question, but that did not seem as if it would be a productive response even though it would have been accurate. Her e-mail did not end with that question. She went on at length bringing up one aspect or another relating to faith and baptism. Below was my reply:

I will be happy to answer your comments if you will first tell me your view of Biblical inspiration. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

Second, how do you resolve "apparent" conflicts when two Scriptures seem to disagree with each other (example, Galatians 6:2 and 6:5)?

She heartily agreed concerning inspiration; her second answer was vague. Rather than deal with her first e-mail point for point, I decided to set forth something that would deal with the heart of the matter. Since she had tried to establish "faith only," it seemed good to begin with an abbreviated list of the factors involved which actually do save us.

You raise some interesting points of discussion, and I will answer every criticism, but let's deal first with your statement that salvation is by faith and not by works. The Scriptures teach that salvation comes as a result of many things. We are saved by many things. You cannot single out faith as if it were the only prerequisite. Let me show you what I mean.

We are saved by God's grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). In other words, if God had not extended grace toward us, we would not have salvation.

We are saved by the gospel (which we will let Paul define a little later). Paul said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). He also said that he had declared the gospel to the Corinthians and that they were saved by it (1 Cor. 15:1-2).

We are saved by holding fast to the word which Paul preached to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:2). In other words, letting it go would cause a person to be lost.

We are saved by the Word of God (both initially and continually). The Word of God is able to save our souls (James 1:17).

We cannot be saved without repenting of our sins (Luke 13:3). Therefore repentance is absolutely essential.

We are saved through water—specifically baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21). You opened your e-mail by asking how I come to the conclusion that baptism is a prerequisite to be saved. This verse says that we are saved by baptism, the antitype of the Flood. You noted Mark 16:16, but you overlooked the key point. Forget about "he who believes not" for a moment (I'll deal with that later). Look at what it specifically says. Jesus said there are two prerequisites for salvation—faith and baptism. If someone gave you a promise that had two conditions, how many conditions would need to be fulfilled before you received the promise? Will meeting no conditions bring you the promise? How about if you fulfill just one condition? Do you see this point?

Now please consider the first sermon preached after Jesus had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. Do you not think this first sermon would be significant? Peter proved to the very ones who crucified Jesus that He is the Son of God. He did so by showing that the resurrection was foretold in Old Testament prophecies (Acts 2:22-31). Peter then added to these facts his own eyewitness testimony, accompanied by that of the other apostles (Acts 2:32).

Having been raised from the dead, and having ascended into heaven to receive His kingdom, He had shed forth what they had observed previously—the apostles speaking in various languages which they had never studied (Acts 2:33; read verses 1-21 for background).

Peter reiterated that Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:34-36) and then the people, convinced of their sins in crucifying Jesus and that God had made Him Lord and Christ, were overwhelmed: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Now compare the inspired apostle's answer with what you wrote.

Peter did not tell them, "Just believe." If they did not already believe what he had preached, they would not have asked the question. But Peter did not say to them, "Well, since you believe, my work is done. You are already saved." Instead he told them what they did not yet know—to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).

Notice their response: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…" (Acts 2:41). Now if God made baptism part of what is necessary to be saved, why do others try to remove it?

My next e-mail will deal with some of the other issues you raised.

No response was forthcoming; so after a few hours, I sent the information given below which dealt with several of the other issues that she raised.

Now I want to deal with some of your objections about baptism being essential to salvation. You first claim that baptism is like circumcision—a demonstration to others, a public proclamation. Where did you get this information from? What Scripture says that baptism is merely a public proclamation? It may be done in public, but it might only involve two people, as with Philip and the eunuch. Generally, it is public, and it does declare that the person wants to be a Christian, but what verse says that is all that it does?

Now confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, actually is a public proclamation, and that is its purpose. You may remember that the Ethiopian eunuch said these words just prior to his baptism (Acts 8:36-39). Paul also mentions this public demonstration as he is writing to his son in the gospel: "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses" (1 Tim. 6:12). So, the confession of faith is the public proclamation, and baptism is the means by which one's sins are forgiven.

The Thief on the Cross

Since Jerusalem and all Judea went out to be baptized of John (Matt. 3:3), you would be hard-pressed to prove that this man had not been baptized, although he had not continued to live the right life afterwards. However, whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant because he lived and died under the old covenant, which did not require baptism, as the Christian system does. Under the Law of Moses no one was required to observe the Lord's death (as Christians do with respect to the Lord's Supper) any more than they would have been required to be baptized. The old covenant was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). We live under the new covenant (Heb. 9:16-17). Jesus could hardly hold the thief accountable for what the new covenant would require.

Metaphor

Who said that baptism is a metaphor? You might want to rethink your picture of baptism being the womb in light of Romans 6:3-5. Paul says that we are baptized into Jesus' death. Baptism does not represent the womb but rather the tomb. "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." We are born again—not as in physical birth—but rather as in being raised from the dead. The old life is gone because we are born anew, having been raised from a watery grave.

Hebrews 11 and Works

I am glad you brought this passage up because it demonstrates what faith is. Did you notice that all those who are said to have faith did something? Their faith caused them to be obedient to God. They did not by faith sit around mentally asserting things; they acted. James said, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (Jam. 2:18b). He also wrote: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." Notice—not by faith only.

But what about all the passages that Paul wrote that say that we are not saved by works? This is the point where we must look for harmony in the Scriptures and not contradictions. What Paul is referring to by "works" is works of the Law or works of righteousness, which, of course, cannot save anyone. When James uses the word works, he means obedience. Don't feel bad if you don't understand this distinction; Martin Luther didn't get it, either. Hebrews 11 and James 2:14-26 are in perfect harmony with one another if you understand that James is arguing that faith must be expressed or it is not faith. In Hebrews 11 you have several expressions of faith that are praised.

None of the people in Hebrews 11 needed to be baptized because they all lived under a different covenant than you and I do. Again, not one of them ever partook of the Lord's Supper because it was not part of their covenant. We don't offer sacrifices as they did because that is not part of our covenant. Jesus is our only sacrifice for sin (Heb. 12:10).

Still there was no reply; so I began working on the last of the matters she had brought up and then went ahead and sent it, also.

Finally, I want to remind you that what you are quoting from Zodhiates is commentary in part. When he refers to the aorist participles, he is correct, but when he says that baptism refers to an "act of outward obedience," that is opinion. You cannot get that from the Greek language. "Was baptized" is passive because baptism is a passive act. When you repent, that is active because it is something that you must do. Baptism is something another does to you; so it is passive.

But let's deal with the oft-made quibble that the text does not say, "He who does not believe and is not baptized." The reason is that the second thing mentioned (baptism) hinges on the first (faith). If you don't believe, why on earth would you be baptized? It is assumed that the one who does not believe would not be so contradictory and ask to be baptized anyway.

Let's take an example. Suppose I say, "If you will come to the city I live in and knock at my front door, I will give you a thousand dollars. If you do not come to this city, you will not receive the $1,000." Do I have to say, "If you do not come to my city and do not come to my door, you will not receive the $1,000?" Of course not. If you don't travel to this city, you can't come to my door. Likewise, if you don't believe, you have no motive to be baptized; so believing is all that needs to be mentioned.

There is an old saying: "What proves too much proves nothing." We are saved by faith, but that does not exclude other requirements. The same argument you made from Ephesians 2:8 concerning baptism would also exclude repentance, which Jesus said was an essential (Luke 13:3). Repentance is not an option. Neither is baptism. But your explanation of Ephesians 2:8 excludes both. You really need to re-examine your argument and conclude that it is invalid since it denies the words of the Savior.

I do not see the relevance of your citation of Acts 2:3.

In Acts 10:44-48, neither the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius nor baptism in water preceded Peter's teaching. He had already preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which is the gospel (Acts 10:34-43; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).

You mentioned that baptism is a work. Yes, it is. It is the work of God, however, not of man. Paul reminds the brethren: "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." First notice how this verse parallels Romans 6:3-5. Second, what occurs in baptism is salvation that is brought about by the working of God. He takes the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5), through which salvation comes, and washes away our sins. Baptism is not a work of man; it is the operation of God by which we are all cleansed. That is the reason that the old man is buried in water and the new man emerges from the water. The eunuch went on his way rejoicing—when? After he was baptized (Acts 8:35-39).

I trust that you will think about these passages of Scripture. There is much more that could be said, but these will make a good beginning.

Thanks for your careful consideration.

The length of these responses furnishes an idea of how many different questions were raised in her e-mails. In this instance, it was not necessary to publish her portion of the discussion since the reader can tell what she wrote from the information provided above. None of what she wrote was unusual; it was fairly typical fare for those who believe in "faith only."

The reader might be anticipating an excellent effort on the part of this woman—and be wondering what she had to say about these Scriptures. So was I! But we all end up being disappointed. She ignored almost everything that was presented, failing to comment on the bulk of the material. She did respond to one or two points but spent most of her response writing about several other aspects of the issue.

However, what was written to her might be of use to someone else even if she could not profit from it. She was not able to look at it honestly because of what she had been taught. In fact, she did not make an attempt to even understand. It was as though it was written in a foreign language, although it is all Biblical.