Sunday Sermons
Arguments Against Baptism
Baptism
Effectively answering objections to
In this lesson I want to consider some objections to the New Testament teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.
The gospel of John does not mention baptism
The claim is made that while the gospel of John frequently mentions faith in relation to salvation it never mentions baptism in relation to salvation at all. Yet the gospel of John does mention baptism and places prior to salvation, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), and notice that being born of water is placed in the same context as John 3:16. If baptism has nothing to do with salvation then why did Jesus and the apostles place it right next to belief (Mark 16:16; Colossians 2:12; Acts 8:36), and salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)?
John 3:5 does not count?
One writer said, “The appeal that some Campbellites (members of the church of Christ) make to John 3:1-7---where ‘water’ is mentioned and an attempt is made to make it mean ‘water baptism’—is of no consequence. Since they claim that the ‘gospel plan’ of ‘baptismal remission’ was not taught until the day of Pentecost, Jesus could not have been teaching ‘baptismal remission’ in John 3. That idea supposedly came into practice on Pentecost” (Bob L. Ross, article dated 6-9-2005). It looks like this author is saying that since we teach that baptism for the remission of sins was not practiced as a reality until Pentecost (Acts 2:38), that Jesus could not have been talking about it in John 3:5. Yet Jesus talked about many things while on earth that did not become a reality until after the cross (see Matthew 18:15-17). While Jesus talked about faith, repentance, confession and baptism prior to the cross, He equally made it clear that such things for the “remission of sins” would not be proclaimed as a reality until after the cross, “and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47; Mark 16:16). In addition, John places being born of water prior to entering the Kingdom of God, and this kingdom, did not arrive until after Jesus died (Mark 9:1; Acts 2:47; Colossians 1:12-13).
Baptism and the Gospel of John
“Nothing changed in his other epistles from what he recorded in the Book of John wherein he quoted what Jesus taught before Pentecost. Baptism is not even mentioned in John’s epistles and Revelation. If Campbellites were shut up to the writings of John, they would find only one way of salvation, and it would not include baptism as part of the gospel” (Bob L. Ross). This is a strange argument for the writer seems to forget that the New Testament is composed of many other books besides the writings of John, thus no one is “shut up” to any mere part of the word of God. In addition, John in this gospel did not mention some things that were mentioned by the other writers. There is no mention of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Does this mean that Christians are to ignore this practice? John equally does not mention many of the parables, does this mean they were never of value?
The gospel of John and “eis”
“While there are numerous verses which indicate that believing into (eis) Christ brings salvation, there is no mention of baptism in relation to salvation at all” (Bob Ross). Now it is interesting for this writer to mention the Greek preposition “eis” because the exact same word is found sitting between baptism and remission of sins, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Yet for years they have been telling us that “eis” does not mean “into” in Acts 2:38 but rather means something like “because of”. So if Acts 2:38 is teaching that one is to repent and be baptized because one is already saved, then for the sake of consistency why doesn’t “eis” mean that same thing when used in connection with faith? Also salvation would then come prior to repentance. In fact, the usage of the term “eis” in the gospel of John only serves to reinforce the meaning of “eis” in Acts 2:38. Seeing that “eis” is placed between faith and salvation in John 3:16, it logically follows that when Peter placed the word between baptism and the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 that it must mean “into”. This point has basically been conceded when all the standard and respected English translations throughout the years rendered “eis” in Acts 2:38 with either “for” or “unto”—and never “because of”.
Piecing together the plan of salvation?
Another complaint I have heard is that the church of Christ has to go from one passage to another into order to patch together their so-called “gospel plan”. First, even those who make this argument must admit that all the truth on one Bible subject is not found in one verse or one chapter. In making their points, denominational writers and those who oppose baptism for the remission of sins piece together one passage after another in seeking to make their case. Yet consider how much is found in each passage:
Mark 16:15-16: Hearing the gospel, faith, baptism, salvation
Acts 2:37-41: Hearing the gospel, faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, being added by the Lord to the church.
Acts 8:35-38: Hearing the gospel, faith, confession, baptism
In Mark 16:15-16 only confession and repentance (which is mentioned in a parallel passage, Luke 24:47) is missing. In Acts 2 only confession is not specifically mentioned by name and in Acts 8 only repentance is not mentioned by name. Yet seeing the apostles were specifically commanded to teach repentance as being necessary for the remission of sins, we know that Philip mentioned it to the eunuch as he preached Christ (8:35) to him.
Mark 16:16 Objections
While various arguments have been offered throughout the centuries in the attempt to get around the clear teaching of Mark 16:16, the particular argument I want to examine is the following: “You will notice that while Mark 16:16 speaks of one who believes and is baptized and of one who believes not, it does not have anything to say about the person who believes but has not as yet been baptized”. This is a strange way of reasoning, for the passage itself, in connecting faith and baptism together, and then placing both of them prior to salvation, does not give us the option of not being baptized and yet being saved. It is equally argued that the baptism in this verse is something that does not happen prior to actual salvation in this life, but is only something that often happens years later. Yet anything we say about baptism in the passage must be equally true of faith, because Jesus placed them side-by-side. If one is saved years prior to being baptized, then what is preventing the interpretation that one is actually saved years prior to being in Christ? Any argument that attempts to weaken the essential nature of baptism equally weakens the importance of faith in Christ. Other passages make it clear that baptism is not something that follows salvation days, weeks, or decades later, rather it is placed right before the forgiveness of our sins here and now (Acts 2:38; 22:16).
John 3:18
It is argued from the above verse that connects faith to salvation (but does not mention baptism) that it proves that one who believes is saved without being baptized. That this is the spiritual condition of the believer who has not yet been baptized. Yet such an argument is attempting to use one verse against another. The basic mistake that people make here is thinking that verses that mention faith and salvation (but not baptism) somehow take precedence over passages that mention baptism as being essential to salvation. Yet God does not contradict Himself, and Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38 are just as much Scripture as John 3:18 or 3:16. Instead of trying to overrule the passages on baptism why don’t we just accept all the passages that deal with salvation? Members of the church of Christ simply accept all the passages, faith is essential to salvation, so is the grace of God, the blood of Christ, and is baptism, because God said so. Arguing that John 3:18 proves that one is saved prior to baptism, because baptism is not mentioned in the verse, makes about as much sense as arguing that faith is not essential to salvation, because it is not mentioned in 1 Peter 3:21 or Luke 24:47. Remember, the sum of God’s word is truth (Psalm 119:160).
Twist on Acts 2:38
I have run into many people who argue that the people on the day of Pentecost who said, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37), were actually saved prior to verse 38. Yet Peter did not tell them so and neither did he correct them that there was nothing they could do. Peter did not view repenting or being baptized as detracting from Jesus being our Savior, neither did he view such conditions as “works” that do not save. Now someone is arguing that the people were not saved until verse 41. The argument is that they were saved when they received the word (faith), and were then baptized. Of course, the verse does not say any such thing. Such an argument admits that one is not saved by faith alone, for the people who asked, “What shall we do?” clearly do believe that Jesus is the Lord. Instead of trying to separate “receiving his word” and “being baptized”, one needs to admit that being baptized is part of the process of embracing the gospel message. Peter had commanded these people to be baptized for the remission of their sins—those who were baptized had done nothing more that comply with this command. Another false view is that “repentance” and “faith” are exactly the same thing, yet this only reinforces the importance of baptism, because Peter would be echoing in Acts 2:38 the same thing Jesus said in Mark 16:16, that faith and baptism are prior to salvation. At this point it is contended that while repentance is connected with remission of sins, baptism is not in 2:38. Yet Peter did connect them, “repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. Peter did not say, “repent for the remission of your sins, and then be baptized”. Notice that “eis” (for) in Acts 2:38 follows baptism and not merely repentance. By attempting to make repentance and faith the exact same thing, and then distancing repentance from baptism only concedes that faith is not the only condition for salvation and that Acts 2:38 is saying that repentance is indeed necessary for the remission of sins. If one is willing to concede this much then why not accept all that the verse is teaching? Finally, if repentance is involved in believing in Christ, seeing that it is placed prior to salvation, then one is conceding that all the passages that mention faith and salvation infer repentance. If one can see repentance in saving faith, then why can’t they see baptism in the same faith, seeing that there are many passages that place faith and baptism next to each other and both prior to salvation? Thus, if “repent” in Acts 3:19 includes faith, then it must equally include baptism.
Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com
