Protests Against Baptism (Part 2)

This week, the examination of Crosswalk.com\’s \“Baptism: What is It? Meaning and Definition\” continues. Last week\’s article (November 21, 2021) examined only the first paragraph, which was full of error. There are five sections discussing various aspects of baptism. The first one was written by John Shore. In his second paragraph, he does correctly define what the Greek word baptidzo means: to \“dip\” or to \“immerse.\” This is one of the few things he gets right.

In his third paragraph, Shore does say that baptism is a symbol of Jesus\’ death, burial, and resurrection, which he describes and explains, but it is still just a symbol despite the fact that he describes it as actual. He says that in baptism a \“person is submerged (whether physically or symbolically) under water.\” What exactly is a symbolic submersion? And where would a Bible student find one in the New Testament?

In his last paragraph, Shore compares baptism to a wedding ring, which is a symbol of one\’s commitment and devotion. Just as a wedding ring reminds everyone that the wearer \“belongs to someone special, baptism reminds us that we are devoted to Christ and belong to Him.\” Uh, how? A wedding ring is visible. When meeting someone for the first time, a person notices it and says, \“This person made a commitment and is devoted to someone.\” A single person knows to look elsewhere for a mate because this one is taken.

But who says, upon meeting someone for the first time, \“Oh, that person has been baptized and belongs to Jesus\”? Nobody! And the reason is that no one would perceive such a thing because the body is not marked in any particular way when a person is baptized. Baptism is not a symbol, and this comparison utterly fails. Baptism does imitate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but it is more than a symbol. Sins are actually washed away by His blood when a person joins Him in His death and burial.

Do You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?

This section is written by John MacArthur; so, what do you think his answer will be? He immediately declares that, according to God\’s Word, baptism is not a requirement of salvation. Who would want to be in his shoes on the Day of Judgment for teaching this error? It is a serious thing to deny what the Scriptures teach.

MacArthur\’s first main \“Scriptural\” argument is that salvation is \“by divine grace through faith alone.\” He then lists 11 Scriptures\—none of which contain the word alone. He cannot find even one verse that says a person is saved by \“faith alone.\” No one objects to a single teaching in these 11 verses or in the \“etc.\” he throws in at the end, but they do not substantiate his claim. Perhaps he thinks no one will notice if he lists a multitude of verses.

Do we believe that we are saved through faith? Yes, but no text says \“through faith alone.\” Do we think we can be saved through works of our own merit? No, but that does not prove that \“faith only\” is true. By the way, Romans 3 and the Book of Galatians both contrast the system of faith with the system of the Law of Moses. We do not believe that we are under that law, but neither is \“faith alone\” taught.

We totally agree that a man is not justified by the works of the law but rather by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16). [Since he brought up Galatians, does MacArthur believe that Christians can fall from grace (Gal. 5:4)?] We also believe that a person is saved by grace through faith\—not of works (Eph. 2:8-9). [Since he brought up Ephesians, does MacArthur believe there is one church (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4)?] We agree with Philippians 3:3, also, but it too fails to mention \“faith alone.\”

Oh, but there is one verse that contains the words faith and alone. MacArthur does not cite it. Why not? Read it and see. \“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone\” (James 2:17, KJV). More recent translations do not use the word alone; they usually render it as \“by itself.\” Faith \“by itself\” would be alone, wouldn\’t it?

External Act

MacArthur cites Acts 15 and Romans 4 as proof that an external act such as baptism cannot be necessary for salvation. But these two passages deal with the Law of Moses. Keeping the Law, which includes circumcision, cannot save anyone. Once again, we find ourselves in agreement\—until he tries to make this principle somehow apply to baptism.

First of all, baptism was not part of the Old Covenant. No one was commanded to be baptized under the Law; so, baptism is not part of any law that ever had to be kept by Israel. It is part of the new covenant; Paul says to the Colossians that in Christ they were

also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (2:11-12).

Under the Law of Moses, circumcision was a physical act performed on male infants on the 8th day. They were incapable of consenting to the act. Baptism is the spiritual circumcision of Christ. Those who submit must believe that Jesus will remove all the sins of the flesh when they are buried with Him. Furthermore, this is a submissive act; no human effort is involved; the working of God removes sins.

If Water Baptism Were Necessary\….

MacArthur\’s third argument absolutely drips with irony though he may be unaware of it. He writes: \“If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the saving gospel of Jesus is presented in Scripture.\” Really? Well, let\’s take a look. The first time the gospel is preached is in Acts 2. When people ask what they should do (having been convinced they killed the Messiah and that He was raised from the dead), Peter answers: \“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\” So, the very first time the saving gospel is preached, baptism is mentioned, and it is for the purpose of having sins forgiven.

Philip went up to Samaria to preach the gospel. And guess what we find? \“But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized\” (Acts 8:12). Baptized? Yes. Later, Philip preached Jesus to a eunuch from Ethiopia, and the man asked if there was any reason he should not be baptized. When Philip preached Jesus, he evidently preached being buried with Him in baptism. When the gospel is preached, people are baptized (Acts 8:36-39)!

Saul of Tarsus was asked by Ananias in a later account of what occurred: \“And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord\” (Acts 22:16). In the earlier account of his conversion, we find he did precisely that: \“\…and he arose and was baptized\” (Acts 9:18c). Those with Cornelius in Caesarea were also baptized\—even though they were Gentiles (Acts 10:47). Lydia was immediately baptized when the gospel was preached to her (Acts 16:15). Then Crispus and \“many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized\” (Acts 18:8).

Then there is the Philippian jailer. Paul and Silas had been thrown into his prison; they were praying and singing at midnight (Acts 16:25). After an earthquake, which loosened the doors of the prison, a conversation took place between the jailer and the missionaries. He asked them what must he do to be saved. They began to preach: \“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household\” (v. 31). That was the beginning of the message: \“Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house\” (v. 32). They needed more information than what was included in this brief introduction.

The next verse tells us the response of the jailer and those with him: \“And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized\” (v. 33). These events started at midnight. Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord, had their stripes washed, and then baptized the jailer. It had to be at least 1:00 A.M. The jailer fed them and rejoiced, having believed (v. 34).

When does the text say he had shown his belief? And when did he rejoice? After his baptism. And when did these events occur? After midnight. Baptism not only accompanies faith; we do find it \“whenever the saving gospel of Jesus is presented in Scripture.\”

What is ironic is that all of these are actual instances of conversion, but MacArthur quoted from theological arguments mostly having to do with the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Christian system. Then he has the gall to say what we should expect\—when that\’s exactly what the Book of Acts provides! Surely, he cannot be ignorant of all eight accounts of conversion. How can he make the statement that he did?

Paul Never Preached Water Baptism?

Shamelessly, MacArthur next claims: \“Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations.\” Seriously? Then why was Lydia baptized? And the Corinthians? And the Philippian jailer? And why was Paul himself baptized? This charge doesn\’t even make good nonsense, to quote Wayne Coats. Let\’s listen to what the Scriptures tell us.

Acts 8:5: \“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.\” Both men and women were baptized (v. 12).

Acts 8:35: Philip preaches Jesus to the eunuch. After a confession of faith in Jesus, the eunuch was baptized (v. 38).

Acts 16:32: Paul \“spoke the word of the Lord to\” the jailer and those with him. They were all baptized (v. 33).

If Paul did not make baptism any part of his gospel presentation, then why were they baptized in the dead of night? Furthermore, we have already shown what Paul taught concerning baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. And we could add Romans 6:1-7. And what about 1 Corinthians 12:13, where Paul said we are all baptized into one body (the church)? What about Galatians 3:26-27?

MacArthur\’s rationale is that Paul defines the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 but doesn\’t mention baptism. Paul is discussing there that the gospel includes the concept of the resurrection. He is not defining the way that people are saved but proving that the resurrection is a key part of the gospel (read the entire chapter). However, he does show the role that baptism plays in obeying the gospel in Romans 6. MacArthur\’s criticism is unfair, to say the least.

As one might expect, he quotes Paul as saying he did not come to baptize (1 Cor. 1:17). Paul\’s point is that he is grateful he did not baptize more than he did lest the Corinthians claim they were baptized in his name, which would thus lead to greater division (1:10-17). He is not teaching that baptism is unimportant; remember many were baptized after his preaching (Acts 18:8). So, what is Paul saying?

Paul had several associates that traveled with him. People frequently had questions after he preached, and Paul engaged them in discussion. His companions could do the actual baptizing while he continued to answer questions and convert more people. Anyone could do the baptizing; Paul used his skills to convince more of those present. The text implies this situation. If Paul only personally baptized a few, who baptized the rest? Acts 18:5 says that Silas and Timothy had joined him. If Paul and the other apostles and evangelists did not preach baptism as part of the gospel, how do we account for all the verses cited? MacArthur\’s efforts to disparage baptism are old and tired. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins has been taught from the very beginning of the gospel era (Acts 2:38). Those who attempt to minimize its importance are false teachers.

[Editor\’s note: Some of the information in the front-page article came from Marvin Wier\’s article of the November 14th issue of The Reno Record.]