Feedback archive →
Feedback 2009
Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is death such a bad thing?
Published: 14 February 2009(GMT+10)
One aspect of our popular weekend feedback article, ‘Cannibalism
complaint against CMI’ was the matter of baptism being required for
salvation. We don’t like to spend a lot of time on subjects not directly related
to creation/evolution issues. However, salvation by grace through faith alone is
a crucial and non-negotiable part of our Statement of Faith.
See also our key page Good News.
So when Roger D. responded to this matter challenging our comments on baptism being
a ‘work’, Jonathan Sarfati provided
the following further commentary. After this, we post a few other comments about
the original article. After that, we respond to another reader who questions
whether death is so bad.
Note that if you have not read the original ‘Cannibalism’ feedback,
it made reference to Mark 16:16, where Jesus says: ‘Whoever
believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.’
The article said:
How come that for centuries, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. have clearly taught
that baptism, while important, is not essential to salvation? The answer is not
that difficult, but it requires carefully considering the passage (and the related
ones)—what it says and what it does not say. My colleague Dr Jonathan Sarfati
wrote a powerful article called ‘Loving God with
all your mind: logic and creation.’ The article touches upon this
particular error, as an example of the logical fallacy formally known as ‘denying
the antecedent’. The big words are not essential to the issue, but note when
he says that this fallacy is … ‘ … committed by some groups
that teach the error of baptismal regeneration by citing the following statement
of Christ according to the Majority Text of Mark 16:16:
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
does not believe will be condemned.
The first part of the verse is an implication: if a person believes and is baptized
then he will be saved. It is invalid to argue from this that anyone who is not baptized
will not be saved. The second part is an explicit statement that unbelief results
in condemnation.
To demonstrate the fallacy, examine the following statement which is in the same
logical form: ‘Whatever has feathers and flies is a bird, but whatever does
not have feathers is not a bird.’ This statement does not teach that there
are no flightless birds.’
Despite this, Roger D. wrote:
It is interesting that you comment about Mark 16:16 and the issue of Baptism as though it were not
essential!
A couple of thoughts!
How can Baptism be a work if it is something that you cannot do for yourself? Isn’t
it just an act of submission and obedience?
Is it any more a ‘work’ than prayer which requires you to exercise your
tongue to talk to God or repentance which may require you do things differently?
What do you think Paul would have said 5 minutes after Ananias gave him the instructions
in Acts 22:16 to get up be baptised and wash your sins away,
calling on his name?
Is it possible that Paul would have changed the formula that Jesus gave Ananias
to only ‘get up and wash your sins away calling on his name’ What about
those who asked Peter and the other apostles Acts 2:38 “Brothers what shall we do? Peter replied
Repent and be baptized everyone of you (not some of you but everyone of you), in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. If they had decided to
only take on part of the message, e.g. to only repent, would that have been obedient?
What if you only believed but didn’t repent? Isn’t it more correct to
teach that we need to include all the things that the scripture asks us to do for
salvation. Belief, Faith, Repentance, Confession & Baptism. Why risk taking
any of these elements out of what we have been asked to do?
I appreciate all the work that your ministry is doing to establish Creation. It
has given me much faith and courage to discuss our wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus
Kind Regards
Roger D
Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.
There is, respectfully, nothing new here in these pro-baptismal-regenerationist
arguments. In common with Protestant orthodoxy down through the ages, we maintain
that baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved.
Paul tells us that we are saved by believing the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–4), but previously told his hearers, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel”
(1 Cor. 1:17). Indeed, just before that, Paul said he couldn’t
even remember baptizing anyone else but Stephanas and his household; surely a dereliction
if baptism were essential for salvation. Ergo, baptism can’t be part
of the Gospel by which we are saved. Furthermore, Peter didn’t mention baptism
in his great sermon from Solomon’s portico (Acts 3:12–26), and neither did Paul in his speech
on the Areopagus (Acts 17:18 ff.)
Also, there is no biblical record of the apostles’ being baptized, yet Jesus
pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3—note that they were explicitly cleansed
by the Word of God, not baptism). Other examples in the gospels of forgiveness of
sin are the penitent woman (Luke 7:37–50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13–14), and the repentant malefactor
on the cross (Luke 23:40–43) also experienced forgiveness of sins
apart from baptism. Note also John 3:16 and John 5:24 where Jesus states that people have already
crossed the boundary from death into life upon belief, not upon baptism.
The book of Acts also provides an example of people who were saved before being
baptized, the first Gentile family who became Christians. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted
through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident
from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v.
46) before their baptism. And once again, it was this evidence that they were already
saved that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
That baptism is the act of a saved person is shown even in the Acts 2:38 passage. Peter appears to link forgiveness of
sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse
that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. “For” is the Greek
word εἰς (eis), and both the English and Greek have
several meanings, depending on the context. Certainly it sometimes means “in
order to” or “to achieve”, “to obtain” etc., which
is the meaning you ascribe to the “for” in this passage, e.g. a diver
came up for air, meaning to obtain air. But this is not the only meaning. E.g. if
I take an aspirin “for” my headache, it certainly doesn’t mean
that I’m taking it to “obtain” a headache. Rather, the “for”
here means “because of”.
Similarly, a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, would be
unlikely to mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery; rather, it
means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery. So too in this passage,
the word “for” signifies an action in the past—that we are baptized
because we identify with the salvation Christ has already achieved for us. Otherwise,
it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace through
faith and not by works (e.g. Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8–9, and about 200 other times
where faith/belief is the only condition listed for salvation).
It is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation
comes from the fact that “repent” and “your” are plural,
while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of
the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent
(and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness
of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not
baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
Similarly with Acts 22:16, the phrase “wash away your sins”
is best connected with “calling on His name”. A connection with “be
baptized” would leave the Greek participle ἐπικαλεσάμενος
(epikalesamenos = calling) “dangling” without an antecedent.
Thus Paul’s sins were washed away by calling on the name of the Lord (cf.
Romans 10:9–13; see below), rather than by baptism.
Baptismal regenerationists try to work around the salvation by works charge by claiming
that baptism isn’t really a work but an “act of obedience”.
But all works are “acts of obedience”. And obedience is
something saved people do; it is the fruit of salvation, not the root.
Another (J.G.) who commented on the article argued:
Belief alone is not going to get it. I believe scripture says that even Satan believes.
The demons believe in one God—but they don’t believe that Jesus died
for their sins, so they lack the proper content for saving faith.
We agree! Belief alone is not enough, unless the content of belief is right.
In 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, Paul explained this content,
and Romans 10:9–13 makes it clear that Jesus as JHWH is
part of this content too (see Defending vital doctrines
and the deity of Christ). But the James 2:19 passage that J.G. alludes to states that
the demons believe in one God—they don’t believe that
Jesus died for their sins, so they lack the proper content for
saving faith.
Yours sincerely in ‘our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13)
Jonathan Sarfati
Post-script
Our intention in responding to the initial cannibalism complaint, which also criticised us for not teaching baptismal regeneration, was not to enter areas outside of our Statement of Faith, but to affirm our position (C5) in that Statement of Faith that salvation is by grace through faith alone. We did not intend to come across as weighing in on any of the other controversies associated with baptism (e.g. mode and subject), as we are a non-denominational ministry. We therefore publish a comment from Lutheran minister Noel S from Canada, as follows:
Dear friends at CMI,
Let me interject a Lutheran understanding of baptism as a middle ground . Baptism is not a work we do to earn salvation, it is a gift we receive from God. Baptism is visible Gospel by which we receive divine adoption and the inheritance of sons (Gal 3:2627). Of course, the promises of baptism are apprehended by faith, but that does not mean that Gods promises are not truly offered in baptism. Yes a person can be saved solely by believing the promises of the bare Word (w/o baptism), but baptism makes those promises very personal: I baptize YOU in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I have a great and wonderful comfort in baptism, it is something I can hang on to when Im tempted to doubt Gods grace and favour & the Gospel IS for ME!
We are confident that Rev. Noel would affirm with us Ephesians 2:8–9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast.
Other comments (about the original article triggering
the letter above)
B.T., Australia:
A most loving and kind response. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all Christians
could discuss their different points of view so graciously? There would be a real
chance that we could learn from one another rather than become deeper set in our
differences. Well done Carl.
J.F., Australia:
A good enquiry and a great response. Your answer expresses exactly what I think
the Bible is telling us and what Jesus taught.
Keep up the good work.
Comment on this article
Dr Raymond Jones, Australia:
This is the clearest and most scriptural presentation of the baptism/salvation issue that I have read. Thank you so much.
Salvation is indeed by God’s grace alone.
Is death such a bad thing?
Michael M wrote:
While reading your articles, I received the impression that your website regards
death as a negative thing.
While I agree that dying is something to be avoided because of the pain that is
usually involved, wouldn’t the reward of entering heaven be an acceptable
alternative to no longer being able to participate in life?
After all, I was informed in my Sunday School classes that heaven is being in God’s
presence, and that is the greatest reward.
Michael
Dr Carl Wieland responds:
Dear Michael
I can understand where you’re coming from—at least at a “first
glance” analysis. However, the matter is somewhat deeper than that, and the
Bible itself speaks otherwise, as will make sense with some reflection on the below
three points, I think.
- Death is called “the last enemy” that will be “destroyed”
(1 Cor. 15:26).
- In the future restoration, i.e. the New Heavens and New Earth, Rev. 21:4 tells us that God “will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old
order of things has passed away.” Rev. 22:3 links this with the removal of the Curse.
I.e. the biblical ‘big picture’ is of the creation of a ‘very
good’ world, in which there were no ‘bad things” such as suffering,
death … This world was ruined by sin, which brought in death among other
bad things, as a temporary intruder, an “enemy”. This world will be
restored back to a “very good” state via the removal of those bad things
(including death).
I don’t think the issue is so much the pain of dying (dying can be a totally
painless thing, physically). It is the separation, the loss. Including when someone
else dies. Note that Jesus Himself wept when Lazarus died (John 11:35), although He was about to resuscitate him.
Obviously to a believer in Jesus Christ, death loses its “sting” (1 Cor. 15:55). This is however not because death is a good
thing, but because the believer can know that he/she will now enter a wonderful
place. In fact, one of the very reasons that this place is so wonderful is precisely
because “there will be no more death”, no more grieving, loss,
etc.
Of course, even believers who have that comfort about death feel the loss of a loved
one, and when that loved one does not know the Lord, they feel the horror of death
even more acutely.
I trust you can see how the teaching of your Sunday School is not incompatible with
the fact that death is hardly a good thing. John Calvin
rightly said in his commentary on Genesis:
‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”,
in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must
still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear,
that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …
Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright;
but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption,
no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’
At the same time, when someone dies they are indeed “promoted to glory”
(as the Salvation Army often puts it).
With kind regards
Carl W.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
|
