What Must One Know About Baptism for It to Be Valid (4)?
[Editor’s Note: In this final article, the discussion continues concerning precisely what a person needs to know in order for baptism to be valid. Several views are presented and refuted.]
Alexander Campbell’s Argument
Frequently a line of reasoning will seem wise until close attention is paid to it (as in the medicine analogy). The following is a synopsis by Roderick Chestnut of one of Alexander Campbell’s arguments from his “Reply to Susan,” which appeared on page 418 in the September 1835 issue of the Millennial Harbinger.
One does not need to clearly understand everything about baptism at the point of immersion, otherwise Paul would have to rebaptize the Christians in Rome, Galatia, and Corinth, for in his letters to Christians in each of these places he had to explain the meaning of baptism.
A monstrous miscalculation was made about these books in order to draw such a conclusion. Paul never said that the Galatians misunderstood baptism; he marveled that they were so soon removed from the gospel which he had preached to them (Gal. 1:6-9). The Judaizing teachers had come in and confused them about the requirements for salvation. There is absolutely no indication that these brethren did not know what they were doing when they were baptized. Paul’s reminding them of certain facts in no way negates their initial understanding.
A similar thing happened in Corinth. Perhaps some Sadducean ideas about the resurrection (that there would be none) had been circulated among the members, but Paul clearly says they (initially) received and stood in the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-2). They may not have known that sanctification and justification took place when they were baptized, but they certainly knew their sins were being washed away (1 Cor. 6:11).
Romans 6:3-11 simply explains baptism more fully than they may have been taught before; in fact, everything in the book of Romans was probably more thorough than they had ever been taught before. Could someone be baptized for the remission of sins and not know he was being baptized into Christ’s death? If he did not see the parallel between Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection and “that form of doctrine” delivered unto him (Rom. 6:17-18), would that make baptism any less valid? Lacking that explanation is far different than not knowing why he is being baptized. If all that the penitent believer knows is that in this obedient act of submission his sins will be removed, he has obeyed what God said to do for the purpose God said to do it. There is nothing in the book of Romans (or any other New Testament book) to indicate that anyone was ever baptized without knowing the reason for doing so.
Ignorance Is Bliss
That anyone would claim that a person could be saved in ignorance is incredibly incredible [just seeing if you were paying attention]; yet such has been the case over the years. Consider the sampling of statements listed below. The words in italics are highlighted for the sake of emphasis. The first quote was allegedly from David Lipscomb responding to one who was asked by a person who was baptized at six whether he should be rebaptized because he now understood the real meaning of baptism.
He replied:
We have no appreciation of the order to rebaptizing people because they learn this or that about baptism. This is putting the virtue of the saving in our knowledge, not in our submission to God. The act of baptism is a declaration of our faith in God through Christ Jesus and of a willingness to give ourselves up to him [sic] as our guide and ruler. When a person has faith that leads to this submission to God, that submission is acceptable, no matter how much or how little else he may know of the will of God.
Below are comments by various other “notables.”
James A. Harding:
To demand that a man shall understand that baptism is for the remission of sins, and to stop at that, is the perfection of inconsistency; and worse still... it is rank sectarianism.
F. B. Srygley:
I am arguing that the man who believes in Christ and is baptized to obey God will be saved whether he knows the time when he is saved or not.
Rubel Shelly:
I see no reason to think one has to understand “for the remission of sins” in order to be baptized scripturally....
Jimmy Allen:
It is my belief that the New Testament teaches when a penitent believer in the crucified and risen Savior is immersed in water to fulfill righteousness or obey God, the Lord forgives his past or alien sins (although he may not know that sins are remitted or that the Holy Spirit is given at that time).
Denny Boultinghouse:
So can someone be saved who has a different understanding about the birth process? Can someone be saved who is not part of our group? … In fact, salvation by proper understanding is just another kind of salvation by works.
Quotations such as these could be multiplied several times over; the common thread running throughout them all is that man does not have to know how he is saved. Never have so many gone to such lengths to educate us as to the validity of ignorance. The argument is that people can be saved and not even know when or how such a momentous deed occurred. Imagine talking with one of the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost: “Why were you baptized today? What did Peter tell you?” “Oh, uh, I can’t really say. I just did what he said; I don’t really know why.” Imagine one of these unknowledgable ones trying to follow 1 Peter 3:15. When asked a reason of the hope that is in them, he responds, “My hope resides in Jesus, even though I can’t tell you when or how He saved me. Say, would you like to be a Christian, too?” “I guess so; what do I have to do to become one?” “Well, I don’t know for sure, but start with believing in Him, and maybe somewhere down the road you’ll obey something that will wash your sins away.”
Jesus taught that salvation was the result of knowledge, not ignorance: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Peter told brethren, “... ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth...” (1 Pet. 1:22). What truth had they obeyed? If the Bible is consistent, they must have obeyed the same truth that he taught on Pentecost: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” (Acts 2:38). Peter also mentions that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Again, where is any passage that says people should be baptized “to obey Christ”?
Do we have two categories of Christians: those saved by a loving obedience to the truth and those saved by accident? No rational person from Campbell onward would ever argue so illogically—if they were not trying to get people saved on the basis of sincerity alone. The problem is that even if they succeeded, they would still be excluding a number of sincere people who do not immerse: Catholics, Presbyterians, most Methodists, Lutherans, and Quakers, just to list a few.
On the other hand, if the doctrine of accidental salvation is true, then more have entered the ranks of the saved than perhaps what were anticipated: Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mormons, for example (why are there no unity meetings with them?). Since doctrine doesn’t matter (at least, so say Osburn, Shelly, Hawley, etc.) and those baptized to obey God are brethren (per Allen’s book), then these additional groups must all be brethren with whom we are in fellowship. Some of them can get up and give their testimonials about when they were saved, and even though they are mistaken, so what? God forgave their sins at a time unbeknownst to them. An even greater irony is that Billy Graham and hundreds of others who have taught and assured people they were saved on the basis of “faith only” will themselves be saved, even though they have taught another gospel and are accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). Isn’t sincerity wonderful? It can nullify just about any sin (though it probably cannot do a thing for those standing for the Truth).
Conclusion
Why is “re-baptism” an issue in the first place? Either a person was baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, or he was not. If not, he was lowered into the water, but he was not baptized. Many people have been baptized in later years because they came to realize exactly that fact. Either their denominational baptism was not valid, or they have judged themselves to have possessed insufficient knowledge when immersed at a young age.
Why are some fighting so hard to keep these souls from a Scriptural baptism? Even if their assertions of accidental salvation were correct, what harm would it do to be immersed a second time? Do they think God would take their initial salvation back? A genuinely sincere person wants to be certain that he was baptized “for the remission of sins”; he will neither fight nor resist, making sure that his salvation is secure.
Let us not be a stumbling block to someone’s goal of eternal life. Let us encourage all people to obey God in the way He said to do it and for the reason He said to do it (if specified). If we really want to please God, we will obey the gospel, worship Him, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth (Rom. 6:17-18).