Protests Against Baptism (Part 3)
The second topic on Crosswalk.com’s website concerning the subject of baptism is: “Do You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?” Predictably, James MacArthur, who answers this question, responds in the negative. He disagrees with the plain teaching of the Scriptures, which report Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost that those present needed to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).
He refers to Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 1:17, which state that Jesus did not send him to baptize. The first question anyone ought to ask is, “Then why did Paul and others baptize the Corinthians?” When Paul wrote Romans 6, it is clear that baptism is part of the process of the new birth. As was pointed out in the first article in this series, Paul was sent to preach the gospel and teach people about salvation; the brothers with him could do the actual baptizing (thus freeing Paul to do further teaching).
MacArthur writes: “If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize?” How about this question: “If baptism were not part of the gospel, why did Paul baptize those responding to his message?” Perhaps MacArthur missed the three verses leading up to verse 17 in which Paul acknowledges that he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus—and maybe a few others he didn’t remember. He evidently also missed the point that Paul rejoiced he did not baptize many (but not because it had nothing to do with salvation) lest they claim he baptized in his own name to make his own disciples. MacArthur takes verse 17 out of its context in a vain effort to make a theological point.
Which Covenant?
Although in error about 1 Corinthians 1:17, MacArthur’s claim there is brilliant compared to the lame argument he next foists upon those unfamiliar with the Bible. He provides four examples of those he claims were saved without being baptized: a penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), a paralyzed man (Matt. 9:2); a publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the ever-popular thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43). Neither MacArthur nor anyone else can prove that the thief had not been previously baptized, but the larger point is this: All of these instances were before the Christian Age took effect!
Peter’s sermon on Pentecost was the first one after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus into heaven where He was given the promise of the Holy Spirit to David—the kingdom and the throne in heaven (Acts 2:29-33). The new covenant requires baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Where is anyone saved in the Christian system apart from being baptized? All of MacArthur’s examples are from a previous era. Baptism was not commanded of them.
Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost. If baptism is not important, why mention it? In fact, why did Luke write, “Then they who gladly received his word were baptized…” (Acts 2:41)? Why didn’t he say they were saved by “faith only”? The Samaritans and the eunuch were all baptized (Acts 8); so was Cornelius and those with him (Acts 10). Lydia was baptized—as well as the Philippian jailer, although it was after midnight (Acts 16:24-34). The Corinthians were baptized (Acts 18:8). Even Saul of Tarsus was told, “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). All of these are after the cross. MacArthur’s examples all occurred before this new covenant took effect (Heb. 8:6-7).
The Apostles
Next, MacArthur alleges that “we have no record of the apostles being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).” Salvation is not the subject of John 15:3 (which is still before the cross). It’s the passage about the vine and the branches. Jesus did not pronounce the apostles clean at this time; He said they were already clean because of the word He had spoken to them.
Truly, the word is involved in salvation; faith comes by it (Rom. 10:17). Notice how Paul ties baptism and the Word together in Ephesians 5:26, where he is discussing the church: “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.” It is the Word that teaches us to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. We have no quarrel with being saved by the Word. However, what about the apostles being baptized? Denying it is simply not true.
First, would the sinless Jesus be baptized to “fulfil all righteousness” when He had no sins to be forgiven of—and then allow His apostles who did have sins to be exempt from being baptized? Who can believe such a thing—except someone with a highly prejudiced view? Second, some of Jesus’ disciples had been followers of John. One was Andrew (John 1:35-40); another one was (by implication) Philip (John 1:43).
Now, let’s see. What was it that John was so well-known for? Hmm. Oh, that’s right. He baptized people. His disciples would have all been baptized before they started following Jesus. But what about those who had not first followed John? Jesus baptized His disciples, also (John 4:1-2). Does MacArthur really want to try to prove that Jesus’ disciples were not baptized? What will he do with Saul of Tarsus, who later became the Apostle Paul? Was he the only apostle who was baptized (Acts 9:18)? In that case, he should have written that he was not behind the other apostles and, in fact, he was ahead of them in some respects.
Bible Verses Cause Confusion
There are two Bible verses that cause confusion, according to MacArtheology: Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Why would anyone be confused by either verse. The only apparent reason would be that MacArthur’s beliefs reject the truths stated in these verses; they are not complicated—unless someone tries to make them so. In Mark 16:16, Jesus discusses the two responses people can make to hearing the gospel preached (see verse 15). Observe:
1) He who believes and (2) is baptized (3) will be saved; but (4) he who does not believe (5) will be condemned. One does not need to be a theologian to discern that the two responses to the gospel involve those who believe (1) and those who do not (4). However, Jesus gave two conditions that must be met in order to have salvation—believing and baptism. They are linked by the conjunction and. Both are necessary in order to achieve the result—salvation.
MacArthur, however, says that this verse means that baptism “is a natural next step after the spiritual belief. It is belief that grants salvation and the failure to believe that causes condemnation.” Did Jesus say that belief (alone, by itself) grants salvation? No. MacArthur said that (and Crosswalk.com agrees). In other words, MacArthur would like for Mark 16:16 to read this way. 1) He who believes is saved. 2) Then he should be baptized as the next spiritual step. However, Mark 16:16 does not teach that concept.
The fact that the second thing mentioned is contingent upon the first thing does not negate their equality. Consider a parallel. Suppose a person said, “He who comes to our church building on Sunday morning at 9:00 and brings his Bible shall receive $1,000.” Does anyone not get this? The second requirement is contingent on the first, but they are still two separate conditions that must be met. One must be present and bring his Bible.
Suppose someone tries to claim the $1,000 by saying, “Aunt Martha wasn’t feeling well this morning, but I brought her Bible; just slip the money inside it.” That doesn’t work, does it—because she did not meet the first condition. The Bible was present, but she was not. No money. Suppose the next week someone said, “I was out of town last week, and I took my Bible to worship there. Do I still get my one grand?” No, sorry, the condition was to be in this building.
It might also be the case that someone says, “I’m here, but I left my Bible at home. I still get the reward, don’t I?” Well, no; condition # 2 was not kept. “I had it ready to come last night, but the dog ate it—along with my homework.” The second condition was still not met; so, no $1,000 is given to that person. How hard is it to see that if two conditions are required, both of them must be met? Didn’t MacArthur first believe and then was baptized? It doesn’t matter because he claims salvation after believing but before baptism.
Therefore, he argues for salvation after only one requirement is fulfilled. That means the second condition (baptism) is unnecessary with respect to salvation. How does this apply to people today? Some Protestants come and claim salvation either prior to or without baptism. Thus, they claim to be saved without the second condition. Catholics and some Protestants say, “I was baptized as a child; therefore, I am saved.” But they were “saved” without faith. Regardless of the way men try to get around both requirements, they still stand.
The people asked Peter what they should do to be saved. He answered: “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” (Acts 2:38). Once again, we see two conditions to be met in this verse: 1) repentance, and 2) baptism, by the authority of Jesus, and for the forgiveness of sins. Once again, the meaning ought to be clear, but MacArthur muddies the water (no pun intended).
After quoting “repent and be baptized,” he adds these words: “…meaning that baptism is not required but a physical next step to take after the spiritual step.” What? How did he find this meaning in the text? Two conditions are given in order to receive the forgiveness of sins—connected by the word and—but he assures the reader that the words of Peter mean that baptism is not required. How is such an interpretation possible? Only a person who is theologically opposed to baptism being part of the salvation process could possibly think this way.
It would not be more surprising if someone read the two great commandments (Matt. 22:37-39), and then concluded, “The first one is essential, but the second one is not required.” On what basis could anyone conclude such a thing? He could not—logically. MacArthur is wrong and has no logical reason to say repentance is necessary to salvation while excluding baptism.
When Saul was sent to punish Amalek, God told him to do two things: 1) Do not spare them; and 2) utterly destroy all that they have (1 Sam. 15:3). Does this command need clarification? Perhaps not, but God gave it by telling him in the same verse to “kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” To summarize, all of the people and all of the animals they owned were to be killed.
When the prophet Samuel met Saul on his return from the Amalekites, the king insisted that he had “performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13). When Samuel pointed out that he had brought back the sheep and the oxen, he said they were to be offered to the Lord. Nevertheless, he violated the instructions. He also brought back alive the king of Amalek, Agag. This act also violated the instructions God gave him. He didn’t kill all the people, and he didn’t kill all the animals.
Peter gave two conditions in Acts 2:38 as necessary for salvation—repentance and baptism. How different is MacArthur from Saul in negating God’s instructions?