We answer some of the common Protestant objections to the necessity of Christian Baptism to Christian Life and Salvation.
Two weeks ago, we published an article called "The Necessity of Baptism" in which we showed from Scripture and the beliefs of the Church Fathers that baptism is not a symbol but is instead the way in which we receive the Holy Spirit and are forgiven of our sins. This position, unfortunately, has become a very controversial one among most American Protestant Christians, and remains a doctrine that is argued against frequently by many Evangelicals in America. That being the case, we are going to answer some of the most common objections to the necessity of Baptism.
Objections to Our Lord
First and foremost we will look at John 3:5, where Christ says "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." The two most common objections to water being in reference to baptism are that a) Christ means to say amniotic fluid, and b) water is symbolic of a Spiritual regeneration, similar to that in Ezekiel 36.
The argument that Christ is referring to amniotic fluid is probably the easiest to show incorrect. Firstly, this interpretation doesn't make sense in the context of being "born again." St. Nicodemus, in the verse prior to this, asks Christ how we are born again, to which Christ replies with "water and Spirit." St. Nicodemus then asks, probably sarcastically, if a grown man can reenter his mother's womb. If Christ is meaning to say that you must be born naturally, then He would either have to mean "to be born again you must first be born," which would be unnecessary to say because everyone who is alive is first born or He would have to confirm St. Nicodemus' sarcastic question about being physically born again. Neither option makes sense. This interpretation also brings up a large problem for those people who die in the womb: are they damned prima facie because they haven't been physically born?
The second interpretation is that when Jesus says "water," He is referring symbolically to a Spiritual washing, similar to God's promise of renewing Israel in Ezekiel 36, specifically verse 25: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." Here again, we see two issues with this interpretation. Firstly, it makes no sense why Jesus would refer to water as symbolically meaning being renewed by the Spirit when He says, not half a second later, that you must be born of the Spirit. Under this interpretation, Jesus would be saying "unless you are born of the Spirit and the Spirit, you cannot be saved." To adopt this interpretation renders John 3:5 redundant.
The second issue is that it assumed that Ezekiel 36 is not a prefigurement or prophecy of baptism. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration should be very willing to say that Christ is referencing Ezekiel 36 because Ezekiel 36 is also talking about baptism. At the time of this conversation between Christ and St. Nicodemus, St. John the Baptist was still widely known for his ministry, and the Jewish leaders were all too familiar with the washing of water for priestly reasons. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that St. Nicodemus would have automatically understood that Christ meant literal washing with water when He said "born of water."
Objections to St. Peter
Secondly, we will look at Acts 2:38, "... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and 1 Peter 3:21, "... baptism... now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
A popular argument against the regenerative baptism interpretation is that the Greek word translated "for" (εἰς) does not mean "in order to" and instead means "because of." The argument (as shown in this Got Questions article) is that the word εἰς can have a causal meaning. However, this is simply not the case. According to Strong's Concordance the word εἰς means "to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, purpose, result)." Christian Courier, a Stone-Campbell movement publication, published an article pointing out that Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the most prominent Southern Baptist seminaries in the nation, rebuts this claim that εἰς can mean "because of." In other words, this objection has no basis in Greek and is an attempt to read a pre-conceived notion about Baptism into the grammar of the passage.
The objections to 1 Peter 3:21 that I have seen are very weak, essentially saying that when Peter says "saves" he doesn't really mean "saves" (see this article for reference). However, I believe Got Questions gives an argument that comes close to the truth but misses the point of what Peter is saying. They conclude their article by talking about how many Christians have downplayed baptism to the point of it being an after-thought, but they spend their time building a case around how the act of being baptized is not an important aspect of salvation and that it is merely a byproduct of salvation. At one point they quote St. Peter's message that baptism is not just the removing of dirt from the flesh, and promptly say "being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt." Ultimately the objection to 1 Peter 3:21 is that this verse cannot mean that baptism actually saves us, but rather St. Peter is just saying, in what seems to be a really confusing way, that baptism is a byproduct of salvation. An argument that says the person didn't mean what they said, especially when no evidence is given to support this claim other than "they couldn't have meant that," requires no rebuttal.
Objections to (and from) St. Paul
Thirdly, there is some pushback to Romans 6:3-5, which states:
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."
Matt Slick of CARM writes that this verse is not talking about baptism's necessity, but is rather saying that being baptized into Christ's death is just referring to baptism as a symbol. The justification for this is appealing to the doctrine of faith alone using Ephesians 2:8-9 while also appealing to the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30-33, which states:
"... 'Men, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family."
The argument is that, because St. Paul is not quoted as saying "believe and be baptized," baptism is not necessary. However, the text states immediately afterward that "they spoke the word of the Lord to him." It is completely justifiable to conclude that Ss. Paul and Silas would have told him that he needs to be baptized, especially because the jailer immediately gets baptized after he receives the words of the Lord. Not only this, but the words of the Lord in Mark 16:16 are clear: "the one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned." If the objection is that St. Paul did not say "believe and be baptized," surely the words of Christ Himself will clear up any doubt.
Objections from Acts 10
Another objection to regenerative baptism comes from the conversion of Cornelius and his family. In Acts 10, Cornelius, a centurion who worships the true God, receives a vision from God telling him to find St. Peter. Meanwhile, St. Peter has his famous "rise, Peter, kill and eat" vision in preparation for the Gentiles' arrival. When Cornelius arrives, St. Peter lodges him and his family and teaches them the Gospel, at which point the Holy Ghost descends on them, they speak in tongues, and St. Peter baptizes them immediately.
The argument is that, because the Holy Ghost descended upon the Gentiles prior to their baptism, then baptism is not necessary for salvation and reception of the Holy Ghost. This is simply not the case. The point of this excerpt from the book of Acts is not meant to clarify the authentic Christian perspective on baptism. There was virtually no argument over the necessity of baptism until the advent of Protestantism, and no reason to clarify any position on it at the time of the writing of the Book of Acts. Rather, the point of this article is to give an authoritative decision on the conversion and worthiness of Gentiles, and this is clearly shown in the following chapter.
In Acts 11:1-18, the Apostles and Jewish Christians criticized St. Peter for communing with the Gentiles, to which St. Peter responds with:
"'...And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?' When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, 'Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.'" (Acts 11:15-18)
The largest controversy in the Church at the time was whether or not Gentiles had to first become Jews before becoming Christian. It was a source of great divide in the Church. That being the case, God sent the Holy Ghost to Cornelius and his family, creating an exception to the rule, so that St. Peter would know that Gentiles can be saved. This is why he then baptizes them immediately and then told the Apostles that, at the sight of the Spirit's descent, that he thought "who am I to hinder God?"
Objections from the Penitent Thief
The Thief on the Cross, or the Penitent Thief, is probably one of, if not the most, popular objections to regenerative baptism. If the thief on the cross simply recognized that Christ was Lord and was immediately forgiven and given the promise of Heaven without baptism, then how can we say baptism saves? There are a few problems with this, however.
Firstly, it is completely inappropriate to assume that the Thief was never baptized. Scripture never states whether or not the Thief was baptized or not. It is just as plausible to assume that he was baptized because St. John the Baptist was well known among the area and revered as a prophet, because the Apostles were sent out by Christ to baptize people, and because the man knew Christ and was repentant of his sins. If he had met St. John or the Apostles, he very certainly could have been baptized by any of them.
Secondly, the Penitent Thief did not die under the New Covenant. At the moment of his coming unto salvation, Christ had not yet died and resurrected, and there were 53 days until the Holy Ghosted descended on the Apostles during Pentecost. According to the Scriptures, the New Covenant wasn't in effect until after the Death of our Lord (Hb. 9:15-18). Therefore, the Penitent Thief was not saved under the New Covenant. He was saved in an exceptional circumstance under the Old Covenant.
Thirdly, this passage has nothing to do with baptismal theology. It is wholly inappropriate and a chief example of bad exegesis to extrapolate from this passage anything regarding the nature and purpose of baptism. The sacrament is not even mentioned anywhere near this passage in St. Luke's Gospel.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the most common objections either come from exceptional cases or from interpreting verses that are clearly in favor of regenerative baptism through a specific interpretation of Ephesians 2 and similar passages. It is extraordinarily ironic because, in all of the articles that researched for this article, the common thread within the arguments against verses that are in favor of regenerative baptism was "we have to take Scripture in full context." We agree. We must take Scripture fully into account, and avoid eisegesis and cherry-picking verses to fit our pre-conceived notions of how God ordained the normative means of our salvation.
As stated above, most of the arguments against regenerative baptism that we found interpreted all Scriptures using Ephesians 2:8-9 as the standard for interpretation. This is picking a single verse, reading it, deciding that it means one thing and one thing only, and then interpreting everything else so that it favors the view that you have espoused. This os not reading the Bible in its context, but is instead reading a certain context into the Bible.
The fear on the part of those who reject baptism's explicit role in salvation appears to be rooted in the implications on the doctrine of faith alone. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then how can salvation be through faith only? It is a very hard thing to grasp and it is a very difficult thing to accept once you realize it for the first time. However, as I said earlier, we must interpret the Bible in the fullness of its context and not simply cherry-pick verses that suit our theological fancy. If baptism's necessity leads one to reject sola fide, then we must accept baptismal regeneration and reject sola fide.
Comments