“Why Should You
Be Baptized?: A Critical Response in Love”
by Marty Anderson
Like many of my friends and colleagues, I dig pastor Mark Driscoll. I don’t catch every tweet, read every blog, or listen to
every sermon of his, but I’m generally a fan.
There is a lot to be admired about this brother. He's a good author, a powerful communicator, and he's a rock star of the faith. He preaches in Seattle, an atheistic culture,
and so he’s edgy and relevant and effective.
Moreover, he takes God’s Word very seriously. Which is why I was curious
what he would say in a recent article of his called
“Why Should You BeBaptized?”. What I read left me feeling a
bit frustrated that the role of baptism has been down-sized once again in
popular Christianity by an outstanding leader in the faith.
Here, I’d like to address a few points made
in the article and offer my alternative interpretation.
We agree Baptism is important, but is it optional?
Pastor Mark makes several great statements about baptism in
this article. “…the Bible is clear that
believers should be baptized.” I
do wonder if the passages he would use to determine that believers “should” be
baptized are the same as the passages I would use to determine baptism plays a
non-optional role in conversion. He
continues: “So, this begs the question: why
baptism?” Christian baptism is an act of
obedience to Jesus’ command.”
The believer being baptized is immersed beneath the waters in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which expresses the believer’s
death to sin and the burial of their old life, and then brought out of the
water, which expresses the believer’s resurrection to a new kingdom life in
Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:1–10;
Col. 2:12).
Finally, he admits: “When
writing a piece such as this, there’s the tension of undermining the importance
of baptism. Even though you cannot be saved through baptism, if you have put
your faith in Jesus Christ then you should be baptized.”
I guess I would like to know what “importance” Pastor Mark
sees in being baptized, and why he believes we “should” do it if he doesn’t
believe it has anything to do with conversion.
If Jesus commanded it, isn’t it necessary? About what other command of Jesus to His
disciples would we say: “It’s important, and we should do it, but it’s not necessary and has nothing to do with
salvation”? I think the same thing that
leads Pastor Mark to say that baptism is “important” is what leads me to
conclude baptism is not optional.
Perhaps the reason he concludes baptism has nothing to do with
conversion is that his theology has led him to separate the act of being
baptized from faith in Jesus.
The Broad, Heady Stuff: Are Faith and Baptism Mutually
Exclusive?
Pastor Mark begins his article with a conclusive observation: some wrongfully teach that faith in Jesus
plus the act of baptism is required to make you right with God. This is not the
case at all. Jesus plus anything ruins everything.
There are parts of this that I agree with completely. According to Galatians 3:3 Paul says, “3 Are
you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the
flesh?”
The Galatians were “adding to” the terms of the gospel by
saying that after a person became a Christian, they were obligated to keep the
Mosaic Law in order to maintain their salvation. The response from Paul is a major theme of
the New Testament – he contrasts law-keeping with salvation by grace through
faith alone. This is absolutely true and
essential, and in that sense “Jesus plus anything ruins everything.” The question is whether any act of man to
respond to God’s call for salvation – any action connected with conversion to
Christ – can be lumped in with the law-keeping of the Galatians.
The New Testament connects belief/faith with confession by
mouth, repentance, and steadfastness, as well as baptism, as conditions for
conversion.
Would any of these actions be considered “additional”
to faith in Christ? Or are they actions
of faith – part of a person’s acceptance of the grace of Jesus? Indeed, later in the same chapter of
Galatians, in verse 27 Paul says that it was in baptism that these Christians
“put on Christ.” Apparently, Paul did
not lump the action of being baptized in with “law-keeping”.
James makes a connection between faith and actions in James
2:14, 17 “What good is it, my brothers and
sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save
them?... 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
action, is dead.”
James focuses on benevolence to the poor as his example of
“deeds.” Is he saying salvation is by
Jesus
plus benevolence? Of course not.
But what point IS James making? It’s this: faith is not merely head knowledge
(or assent) but also trust.
I like the story of Charles Blondin, a tight rope walker in
the 19th century.
He would steer a wheel barrow across the high
wire over Niagara Falls to the amazement of the crowds below. On more than one occasion he would ask the
crowd, "Do you believe I can carry a person across in this
wheelbarrow?" The crowd enthusiastically shouted, "Yes, yes, yes. You
are the greatest tightrope walker in the world. You can do anything!"
"Okay," said Blondin, "Get in the
wheelbarrow...."
Sometimes “deeds” are used to demonstrate faith. I think James and the New Testament help us
understand that there is a difference between “works of the law” and “deeds” of
faith. The former are treated as a
means to salvation, while the latter are
the expression of genuine belief. All of
the commands and admonishments of the NT epistles only make sense if we
understand that faith in Jesus requires obedience to His commands. And that lack of obedience demonstrates a
lack of genuine faith.
Again, none of this precludes the truth that “Jesus plus
anything ruins everything.” It just
clarifies how I understand that statement, versus the way it is used in the
article. From here, we move from the
broad and philosophical to the specific statements about baptism and its role
in conversion.
An Outward Witness, or Something More?
Pastor Mark says,
“the Bible presents baptism as an outward
witness of an inward faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.” This is a true
statement, but I don’t think he encapsulates ALL that the Bible says about
baptism. It’s like he says, “Baptism is
a symbol.” I agree with that, but I
believe not only is baptism a symbol, it is an act of responding to God’s call. It is a work, but not of man to earn
salvation; it is God’s work of cleansing on the heart of everyone who submits
to Him.
Baptism is an outward witness usually accompanied by an
inward faith. But that doesn’t mean that
it is not ALSO a necessary step in conversion.
True, the water does not save, neither does the act itself save – only
Jesus saves, and to say otherwise would be belief in baptismal
regeneration. Baptism apart from faith
is just getting wet. But baptism is the
most likely, and most biblical, occasion for a believer to be united with
Christ. Consider all that baptism in
water is for one who puts his/her trust in Jesus:
- It is when we are united with Jesus’ death,
burial and resurrection (Romans 6)
- It is when we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27)
- It is when we receive the forgiveness of sins
and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
- It is how we “call” on the name of Jesus (Romans
10:13; Acts 22:16)
- It is when we are sealed with the Holy Spirit (1
Corinthians 12:13)
- It is when we are “born again” (John 3:5-7;
Titus 3:5)
A Wedding Ring, or a Wedding?
Pastor Mark uses a popular analogy for baptism. He says, “Baptism is like wearing a wedding
ring.” In other
words, a couple is married whether they wear it or not, but it’s a nice thing
to do for your spouse to show them you love them. But what if baptism were less like a ring,
and more like the wedding ceremony? Would that make a difference?
When does a couple go from dating or engaged to married? One day the couple are two single people with
love and a pledge to each other to be together, the next day they are a married couple. What happened? There was a ceremony – an act that unified
them. Now, at what exact moment did the couple become “man and wife”? Was it at the engagement? Was it when the father gave the bride
away? Was it at the vows? The exchange of rings? The pronouncement by the minister? The kiss? When they had sex for the first time,
consummating the marriage?
I don’t know for sure, but what I do know is on the morning
of May 18th, 2002 I was still a single man, but by that evening I
was married to my beautiful wife, and “the two [have been] one flesh” ever
since. I’m not sure which portion of the
ceremony was THE moment, but like my friend Dave Stone once explained, I participated
in them all because I love her. I didn’t argue whether or not the exchange of
rings was necessary, or the public kiss, or the vows, I just did them all.
In the same way, Scripture gives a number of instructions
for someone ready to accept the gospel and begin their journey with Jesus.
Believe,
repent, confess, be baptized, remain faithful.
Which one is the moment a person is
saved? Which ones are optional, if any? These are the wrong questions. If you love Jesus, wouldn’t you want to do
them
all so that you begin your union
with him in an attitude of love and full submission?
In John 14:15, Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands.”
Who would respond to Jesus, “Well, I’m good with everything besides
baptism into the whole Father, Son, Holy Spirit thing. That one’s optional…”?
Just like a Wedding Day is the benchmark for a couple,
marking their anniversary for years to come – so baptism is the benchmark for every
believer for remembering the day he/she began their journey with Jesus.
Sadly, I think there are a lot of
live-in companions of Jesus (cohabitating with the Savior, playing church) who
haven’t gotten around to making their commitment “official”. But I digress…
A Critical Argument
At the crux of Pastor Mark’s article he gives three
arguments against connecting baptism to conversion:
If baptism had anything to do
with salvation, what about the Philippian jailer and the thief who died on the
cross next to Jesus? ...Both of these guys were promised heaven without being
baptized. …if baptism was pivotal to our salvation, why did Paul tell the
Corinthians that he came to preach the gospel and not baptize them (1 Cor.
1:14–17)?
The three examples he uses against the necessity of baptism
are: the Philippian jailer, the thief on the cross, and a statement from Paul
to the Corinthians. These are the most
obvious differences between Pastor Mark’s view of baptism and mine.
First, Pastor Mark says the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 was
“promised heaven without being baptized.” We are more familiar with verse 31 than we are
with verses 32-33. Just read them
TOGETHER, and as Paul Harvey used to say, we will get “the rest of the story.”
30 He then brought them out and
asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in
the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved —you and your household.” 32 Then
they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds;
then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
While belief (faith) in Jesus is the starting point in
leading this man and his family to Jesus, it was clearly not all that Paul and
Silas instructed the man to do. The
“word of the Lord” must have included the step of baptism, because within an
hour, Paul and Silas were baptizing everyone in the family
. The same thing happened previously in Acts 8,
when Philip won the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ.
The Bible says,
“35 Then Philip began with that very
passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they traveled along the road, they
came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in
the way of my being baptized?”
Apparently the “word of the Lord” and “the good news about
Jesus” included instructions to be baptized into Christ, just as Jesus
commanded in Matthew 28:19-20.
I’m confident that Pastor Mark knows the Philippian jailer
was immersed, but he claims that the jailer had the promise of heaven before
baptism (but presumably after belief in Jesus).
That’s like splitting hairs to me.
Maybe somewhere between verses 31 and 32, there is an implied promise of
heaven. I just don’t see that here.
On the contrary, I think suggesting the Philippian jailer
had the promise of heaven before baptism would be akin to saying that Naaman
would have been healed BEFORE he dipped in the Jordan the 7
th time,
or that the walls of Jericho
would have fallen BEFORE Israel marched around the city 7 times on the 7
th
day. The actions leading up to those
transformations demonstrated faith, and completing the process was the
necessary obedience for receiving God’s blessings. In neither example did those people work for
or earn those blessings – they were a free gift from God. There was a command with a promise, and the
blessings of the promise were received by faith, as demonstrated through
obedience to the command.
I love how the joy in the Philippian’s house is depicted in
verse 34 after their baptisms. “The jailer brought them into his house and
set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe
in God—he and his whole household.”
This is the joy I’ve seen time and time again after a new believer rises
from the water of baptism.
The second example Pastor Mark uses is the thief on the
cross. There were two thieves. Both hurled insults at Jesus at first.
But approaching death, one of them wised up
and rebuked the other saying,
“Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you
are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting
what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he
said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus
answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
There are three things I believe about this “wise”
thief. First, I absolutely believe that
he is saved, and he will be in heaven with the rest of God’s people for eternity.
No doubts whatsoever. Secondly, I believe the thief will be in
heaven for the same reason I believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses,
Samuel, Elijah, David, and John the Baptist will be in heaven. They were saved by their faith. They “believed God” and it was “credited to [them]
as righteousness.” Which leads to the
third thing I believe about the thief on the cross: he was saved according to
the conditions of the Old Covenant.
The thief on the cross died prior to Jesus’ death, burial
and resurrection. And he died before the
Holy Spirit came on Pentecost to inaugurate the church. He died prior to the preaching of the first
gospel sermon by Peter in Acts 2. He was
a believer, but he was not a part of the Christian church during his life on
earth. There was no baptism into Jesus Christ
until Pentecost, and no Christian in the New Testament who
wasn’t baptized into Jesus
after
Pentecost. There were actually a group
of believers who were baptized by John, who, upon hearing about Christian conversion,
were baptized into Jesus.
So the Philippian jailer WAS baptized. The thief on the cross didn’t need to be
baptized because he was saved under the Old Covenant by God (indeed by Jesus
himself!) because of his faith. Now,
what about Paul’s statement to the Corinthians about baptism?
The context is that there are divisions and cliques
(“quarrels”) in the church at Corinth.
So Paul quotes them in his letter, saying, “12 “I
follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still
another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is
Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of
Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and
Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes,
I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I
baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to
preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be
emptied of its power.
Pastor Mark asks why Paul would say this if baptism were
pivotal to salvation. Here’s my
understanding. I think Paul was talking
about divisions in the church, not conversion.
This passage is not instructions for new believers to convert to
Christianity, but a rebuke to a congregation of Christians who are not
demonstrating Christian unity.
Paul was glad that he didn’t baptize more people personally because that might have
widened the chasm between the cliques. He wanted the Corinthians to baptize each other into Christ to remove the
celebrity factor from their feud. Any
Christian can baptize. Paul’s calling
was to preach, not necessarily to do all the baptizing himself – although he
did baptize several of them.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul teaches about baptism
on no fewer than 14 occasions. The real
question (IMHO) is: Why did Paul teach so
much on baptism if it wasn’t pivotal to salvation?
Conversion is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. It is pivotal to Christianity because it
deals with how one begins his/her journey with Jesus. Sometimes our churches hold onto traditions
and methods and ceremonies beyond their usefulness – and we could easily
understand them being labeled as “optional” formalities. Stained glass, pipe organs, Sunday School,
morning exercises before Sunday School, acolytes to light candles, singing the
Doxology after an offering; the list of optional formalities is endless. But baptism is deeply rooted in Scripture,
with direct ties to every convert in the New Testament, and centuries of church
tradition that saw it as connected to conversion. Plus, it’s simple. It’s easy.
It’s accessible to people in every corner of earth. There is no good reason NOT to baptize every
person who wants to become a disciple of Jesus Christ, and every reason to
believe that we should retain this ancient practice in the modern church.
And, in case you’re wondering, I’m still a big fan of Pastor
Mark.
I’m going to presume that Mark Driscoll’s
understanding of baptism is more influenced by his overall theology (including
Calvinism) than purely looking at the bible passages that teach about
baptism. The same argument might be made
of me, that I am coming to the Bible and his article with the preconceived idea
that baptism plays a role in conversion – and I will grant that we both have
biases. But what I want to point out is
an alternative to his interpretation, and leave others to discuss.
