- Image via Wikipedia
This is an article from CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) regarding the issue of baptismal regeneration. Only the introduction is posted here. Please read the rest of the article at the original site to get the a full understanding of this.
The reason I post this is because recently I have had some discussion regarding this issue. As many of you know, I’m in Bible College. Well, currently my class is in the book of Acts. In this class my professor facilitates discussion on controversial issues in this book. Namely, speaking in tongues and baptismal regeneration. We had a heated debate, and I was one of only three people in the class who does not believe baptism is necessary for salvation. This should not come as a surprise, though, since the Bible College I go to is Church of Christ.
I would like to hear your thoughts about this after you read the article.
**BEGIN ARTICLE**
- One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, “No, water baptism is not necessary for salvation.” But you might ask, “If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like ‘…baptism that now saves you…’ (1 Pet. 3:21) and ‘…Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…’ (Acts 2:38)?” These are good questions and they deserve a good answer, so we will look at these verses later. But for now, the reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is because we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8), not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11). You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone. In the Bible circumcision was a ceremony where one person performed a religious rite on another person. Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person. But, we are saved by faith alone and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help.
If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe, not when we get baptized, otherwise we are not saved by faith. Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins, etc., would go to hell if he doesn’t get baptized before he died. This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved. Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren’t baptized. Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions — otherwise it isn’t necessary.
Now, in order to more thoroughly look at this issue, I need to lay a foundation of proper theology, and then I’ll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation.
**END ARTICLE**
To read the rest of this article, visit the original site here. Go there. Read it. It’s good.
—Jonathan
Related articles
- Keeping God In The Spice Cabinet (sortingbeans.com)
- Light Duty (sortingbeans.com)
- Books of the Bible (sortingbeans.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7d88d27f-ebe1-4140-98bf-4e8be5825bac)
Twitter Updates
The Church of Christ will often make a consession for "baptism of the heart" for those who are either on their deathbed or on hit by a bus on the way to being baptized. I know. weird.
Interestingly, this did not come up. I think that's just a lame way of getting yourself out of a hole. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in baptism of the heart, if we're talking about circumcision of the heart, which would happen at the moment of conversion. There were so many loop holes in Travis's arguments I could have used it for cheese cloth.
The main issue is this, the Church of Christ (COC) looks to examples from the most orthodox rituals when trying to explain their doctrine. In this case, they will say the Book of Acts is the oldest document showing the mode of salvation as being baptism.
Now, if you are not of the Reformed persuasion, this makes complete sense. You are saying, in a sense, that God has only limited control over day-to-day operations, including salvation. It is all in the language used by the COC in their doctrinal statements and literature (mostly those from Jack Cottrell, but not limited to him alone). The act accounts of original sin are invalid (Adam screwed it up for the rest of us) as well as the total depravity (however, this is almost agreed on by Cottrell). In the COC view, we come to Christ to be saved. We are not saved by Christ so to speak. Even though one reads "Salvation belongs to the Lord" in ones Bible, it is not accepted through and through. Don't believe me? Read Cottrell's book The Faith, Once for All.
Anyway.
If you believe you save yourself, instead of God saving you, you must then make up the steps to salvation. After all, if there are no steps, there is no salvation. Step one, acknowledge you are a sinner. Step two, say a prayer. Step three, get dunked.
If you believe only the Lord can save you, all this becomes unnecessary. It becomes something unachievable by works. Baptism becomes the ultimate transforming action for a baptismal regenerationist. It is simple act of obedience and a sign of inward change by those who are not.
I don't agree with Cottrell, but you're misrepresenting his position. He doesn't hold that anything or anyone but the Lord can save. He doesn't say that baptism saves, but rather that baptism is the place where God saves. Ask him or read his material, his line is "Saved BY faith AT baptism." I'm not saying you need to buy into it but at least give the man credit and don't put words in his mouth.
This idea that baptism is a "work" is bizarre to me. Is repentance a "work?" If I repent of my sin does that mean I'm trying to earn salvation by performing a specific action?
I hold to a "single-handed" soteriology. And that would be God's hand, not mine.
Fair enough. Cottrell's an interesting guy… probably under-respected as a thinker because of the way he presents his material. His soteriology, though, is pretty nuanced. I took his class, read several of his books, and still had to sit down with him to make sure I understood what he was saying. Even after it all, I didn't get it all right, which goes to show that the arguments he makes aren't easily quashed by one-liners. Trust me, the dude is nothing if not methodical. If there's a verse, he's considered it.
Or maybe I'm just slow. That's always a possibility!
Ok, in my copy of FOfA, on page 361, Cottrell specifically refutes the idea that there is a causal (as in cause, not as in casual) connection between baptism and salvation. He disagrees with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration:
"The causal view… must be rejected altogether. There is no basis for ascribing any saving power to the baptismal water or to the act of baptism itself. God's power and God's action alone can save; the sinner is saved when God applies the blood of Christ to his heart and gives him the gift of the Holy Spirit."
I'm quoting Travis here, but he said that Cottrell believes as he does, that the Holy Spirit is given at baptism. And Travis also agreed that it's not causal, in the sense of it being a mere work. However, the idea (per Travis) is immediate. Baptism alone does not save, but one is saved by the gift of the Holy Spirit, given by saving faith, at the time of baptism. This just sounds circular to me. I actually asked some really challenging questions just so that I could make sure I was understanding him clearly, and this is certainly what he said Tuesday night.
I just want to clarify that Travis stated that one does not receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism, and that baptism is to be immersion. Though, he did mention that he thinks God can do what ever God wants to do whenever God wants to do it—including save someone without baptism. But my point to Travis was that if you're going to assert that baptism is necessary, then say God can do differently, then baptism is not necessary. I just wished he would have been consistent.
Well, there's "necessary" and "necessary." Cottrell (and Alexander Campbell, for that matter) doesn't quibble with the idea that there will be unbaptized people in heaven. But the idea is that the Bible lays out God's intended plan. Strictly speaking, nothing is "necessary" since God can work outside his plan whenever he wants. But the plan he lays out, Cottrell would argue, is "Saved by faith at baptism."
Yes, but then we cannot say it is necessary. We can can certainly say, however, that we ought to follow the teachings of the Bible, and hold that outline God gives us very high (which I do).
If something is necessary, then there is no exception. We can say "extremely important," but to say necessary brings it to an entire different place. It would be much like saying "Absolutely necessary," but this would only be a redundancy (which our culture employs far too much). It's like saying, "Man, I want a cheeseburger so bad, I can just taste it in my mouth!" Where else would you taste it? lol. Believe me, I commit these redundancies all the time, but that does not justify the use of the word necessary for the sake of baptism unto salvation.
Either way, I think the question ought to be more along the lines, If one hasn't been baptized after believing, why not?
Would you agree?
Oh, don't misunderstand. I don't buy into the construct at all… I'm working from an entirely different grid. I just wanted to make sure the other side of the debate is being given its due.
Nope, my approach is entirely different. But at the very least, baptism's a first test of obedience. If you're going to quibble with God's direction right out of the gate, then you're kinda missing the point.
Agreed.
I actually asked him about that very issue. He said that he would (1) preach baptism to that person dying and (2) try to baptize him if possible. I was never able to take this in further discussion because, well, there are others in the class who want to discuss also, and many times he over talked me and made his point, finishing with "That's what the Bible teaches, and I can't teach anything else." So no, it was not an extrapolation.
That is hilarious! I wished that pastors would become more of theologians and understand that when Jesus said that you cannot enter the Kingdom unless you are born of the Spirit and of water that He was referring to the Spirit of God and Himself (i.e. "come to me all who are thirsty").
This is noy a black or white, pass or fail kind of requirement. You can start dating and you can get married to God. A child knows nothing about dating or marriage. When we are 'old enough for love" we have a choice to begin dating at any time God calls on us. Exceptions do abound; God cant be put in a box.