This
question may seem a bit obscure and require a moment’s reflection to
digest, but it actually addresses a very common and familiar situation.
Anyone who knows much about Evangelicalism knows that at its heart lies
the concept of salvation by faith alone. For Evangelicals, salvation
comes at the point of belief and before, and without, baptism. Yet,
Evangelicals also seek, and encourage, baptism. Hence, the idea that
people should be baptized but for some reason other than to be saved is
by far the norm.
If anyone
wants to be baptized at all, it is because the New Testament instructs
people to be baptized. It is inconceivable that anyone could come away
from a reasonably careful reading of the New Testament without getting
that impression from it. This much is not even questioned, much less
controversial. The result, then, is a situation in which baptism is
held to be essential to obedience but not essential to salvation. In
the abstract, the idea that something could be essential to obedience
but not salvation is not at all strange, since almost all of a typical
person’s obedience to God’s commands does follow salvation.
Yet, the
fallacy of applying this thinking to the purpose of baptism begins to
unravel simply by asking how anyone could manage to become convinced
from reading the New Testament that he should be baptized without also
noticing in the same texts the very reasons why he should be baptized.
Such a scenario is so improbable that the only reasonable conclusion one
can draw is that such people have willfully chosen to ignore New
Testament teaching about baptism. A brief survey of some of the more
outstanding texts relating to baptism renders this conclusion
self-evident:
(1) How
does one learn from Jesus’ commission to His apostles that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is how he is made His disciple
(Matt. 28:19)?
(2) How
does one learn from Jesus’ commission to His apostles that he should be
baptized without also learning that, along with belief, it comes before
salvation
(Mk. 16:16)?
(3) How
does one learn from Peter’s response to the people on Pentecost that he
should be baptized without also learning that it is “for the forgiveness
of sins”
(Acts 2:38)?
(4) How
does one learn from the Ethiopian eunuch’s recognition of his urgent
need to be baptized that he should be baptized without also learning
that it intervenes being taught Jesus and going on one’s way rejoicing (Acts
8:35-39)?
(5) How
does one learn from Paul’s recounting of his baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is to wash away sins
(Acts 22:16)?
(6) How
does one learn from Paul’s teaching about baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is “into Christ Jesus” and “into
His death” and so that one “might walk in newness of life”
(Rom. 6:3, 4)?
(7) How
does one learn from Paul’s teaching about baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is essential to his identity as
being “of Christ”
(1 Cor. 1:12-15)?
(8) How
does one learn from Paul’s teaching about baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is when he is “clothed with
Christ”
(Gal. 3:27)?
(9) How
does one learn from Paul’s teaching about baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it is when he is buried and raised
with Christ
(Col. 2:12)?
(10) How
does one learn from Peter’s teaching about baptism that he should be
baptized without also learning that it “saves”
(1 Pet. 3:21)?
While not
every text is so explicit in making this connection between baptism and
salvation, yet, that connection is so clear and compelling that a good
argument might be made for it from virtually any text referring to
gospel baptism. Thus, it is so improbable as to be practically
unimaginable that anyone desiring salvation could undertake a serious,
careful, and conscientious study of the New Testament and conclude that
he should be baptized without also concluding that the reason he should
be baptized is because it is essential to his salvation. In short, the
very texts which convince him he should be baptized are the very ones
which should convince him that he should be baptized to be saved.
That being
the case, the idea that a person, strictly from reading the New
Testament, would want to be baptized to obey God but not to be saved
simply lacks credibility and fails to conform to reality. To be
charitable, it is conceivable that a person might come to believe in
Christ from a brief and casual reading of some New Testament texts
(e.g., Jn. 3:16) and conclude he is then saved without having been
baptized.
The very
contemplation of such a scenario requires the improbable conception of a
person who has so little regard for his salvation and so little respect
for God’s word that he is content to vouchsafe his soul to a process
which cherry-picks isolated texts for the ease and comfort they provide
and rejects the rest. That alone is sufficient to raise doubts about
his salvation.
Rather, the
kind of person this question contemplates and the kind experience offers
is one who is serious enough about his faith to continue a more
extensive study of the New Testament. In the course of such a study, he
will shortly uncover numerous texts about baptism and its relation to
salvation. This means that he cannot conclude from reading the New
Testament that he should be baptized to obey God without having to
confront what the New Testament says about its relation to salvation.
Thus, at this point, he will have to make an informed decision about
baptism. Whatever it is, it will also involve a very conscious
conclusion about its purpose. He has long passed the stage of innocence
by way of ignorance. If he decides to be baptized to obey God but not
to be saved, his decision necessarily entails a very the conscious
conclusion that baptism is not essential to salvation, and that in the
face of all the New Testament says about baptism’s relation to
salvation. Thus, any decision to be baptized to be saved but not to be
saved will involve a more-or-less elaborate attempt to reconcile the
texts already considered with the notion that baptism is not for the
purpose of salvation.
It is now
time for great candor. This, then, is not a person who is baptized in
obedience to God’s command but rather in defiance of it and rebellion
against it.
If anyone
thinks this conclusion is unwarranted or exaggerated, he should consider
that it enjoys the vast support of reality. Evangelicals by the
hundreds of millions have not been baptized to obey God but not to be
saved because they live in a doctrinal vacuum and have simply followed
an impulse to be baptized from some vague sense of the need to obey
God. No! They are baptized “to obey God” but not “to be saved” because
they are desperately clinging to the cherished doctrine of salvation by
faith alone with all the far-fetched, lame, ungainly, and incredible
quibbles they can muster. Thus, the idea that one should be baptized
but should not be baptized to be saved is not the result of slight
inadvertence in one’s Bible reading; rather, such a baptism is done in
conscious response, and deliberate submission, to a rebellious, man-made
creed. No other rational explanation is available nor one need to
sought, except by those who, discontented with the narrow fellowship of
God’s people, wish to enlarge it by accommodating the disobedient.
Other Articles by
Gary Eubanks
Does "Doubting Didymus" Demand Deliverance?
Must All Preaching be
Expository?
Talking Code
If You Remain Silent - Intolerance of
Controversy
Fathers, Divorce and Brethren
The Sunday Supper
Negative About Positivism