IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL?

In another part of this issue you may read a short piece on the work of the Wycliffe translators. We rejoice over the work they are doing. It would be difficult to name anything more important than giving people the word of God in their own vernacular. The author of the essay, Danny New, along with his devoted wife, are longtime friends of mine. In fact one of their children is named for me, a distinct honor indeed. I not only keep in touch with the News in the Wycliffe program (no play on words intended!) but with Ralph Reed and his wife as well, who often write of their exciting ministry with Wycliffe. A recent letter from Ralph forms the basis of this article.

Ralph, son of a Church of Christ missionary, tells me that the Wycliffe program is not open to anyone who believes that anything more than faith in Christ is essential to salvation. He points out that Church of Christ and Christian Church folk who believe that baptism is essential might be directed to serve with the Pioneer translators. I find this information to be thought provoking, if not alarming. I am not disturbed over the position taken by Wycliffe, but over the impression people have of our doctrine of baptism. Should we hold the view that baptism is essential to salvation? I would like for you to think critically with me on that question for a few paragraphs.

Should a Wycliffe official or anyone else ask any of us in the Church of Christ if we believe that baptism is essential to salvation (going to heaven), I think we should say no, or at least yes and no, depending on where one is. We should say no because we speak as the scriptures speak, and the Bible nowhere says that baptism is essential. Or we might say yes and no, in that even the Wycliffe folk concede that baptism is a command, and if one understands it to be a command for him, then it is essential for him to do it. This happens to be where the scriptures place baptism: it is the answer of a good conscience toward God (I Pet. 3:21). I doubt if the Wycliffe folk would reject anyone for believing that.

If we accept as absolute the premise that baptism is essential to salvation, then we must conclude that no unbaptized person of accountable age will be in heaven. A Dallas newspaper recently reported the case of a person who was about to be baptized in a river being suddenly carried away by an under current. The preacher was about to immerse him when suddenly he was gone, carried into eternity before he was baptized. At the time of the news item the body had not been recovered.

There is not one person in a thousand among us in Churches of Christ-Christian Churches who believes that such a person will go to hell for not being baptized. This being the case, we do not believe, absolutely, that one must be baptized to be saved. The case cited is of course very unusual, but there may be many reasons why a true, penitent believer is not yet immersed. It is a very vulnerable, judgmental religion that consigns them all to hell. I am convinced that the vast majority in the Church of Christ do not hold such a legalistic position.

Too, if baptism is an absolute must for going to heaven, even the hands of almighty God are tied. One could bar the door of heaven and not even allow the Father to grant entrance to a single unbaptized soul. If it be argued that baptism is an edict of Christ, the apostle Paul recognized that God is not subject to any such limitations: “It is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him” (I Cor. 15:27). God can fill heaven with unbaptized people if he chooses to do so. We therefore must be careful in speaking in absolute terms. Essential is a very stubborn, unbending term, and it is our deduction. The scriptures do not use it in reference to baptism. I would be willing to answer any inquirer with: baptism was essential for me, understanding the ordinance as I did. But my understanding and obedience cannot be made an absolute for everyone else.

In our efforts to restore an ordinance that we believe others have neglected, we have, I fear, overstated our case, or what we believe to be the Biblical position. If we are dispassionate enough on the subject, we should begin our re-examination with the realization that not only has the church at large disagreed all these centuries on baptism but our own fathers in the Stone-Campbell movement as well. Even when we suppose we have the truth on the subject, it is hardly appropriate to be dogmatic.

If we are the Bible-centered people we claim to be, it should be enough for us to say only what the scriptures actually say on the subject. One of my Wycliffe friends stated in one of his letters that among the translators there is little disagreement on what the scriptures actually say. They disagree on what they think it means by what it says. Perhaps that is our answer. We do not have to say all that much about what we think it means, but what it says.

The Bible says several exciting things about baptism, such as it being for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that we are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), and that we are buried with Christ in baptism (Col. 2:12). Since the Wycliffe translators agree with us that the Bible says these things, we should all be willing to forget what we think it means by what it says.

If we all believe what the Bible says, we will believe that in some sense or in some way the believer is buried with Christ in baptism and that it is for the remission of sins. If one will not go this far, then he does not believe what the Bible says, apart from what one may believe it means by what it says.

But I like the way the Wycliffe folk stated their objection: they do not want people who believe that anything more than faith in Christ is essential to salvation. In the light of scripture who can deny such a proposition? Of course it is by faith and only by faith, and it is in this context that Paul places baptism, which is “through faith in the working of God” (Col. 2:12). And the apostle assures us that salvation is only by God’s mercy, apart from any work of righteousness which we do ourselves. It is here that he describes baptism as “the washing of regeneration,” and not regeneration itself (Tit. 3:5).

We seriously err if we make baptism more than a faithful response to the grace of God, which is the only source of our salvation. We must not leave the impression that one procures salvation by being baptized. Baptism is that ordinance of God, by which, when obeyed, one can know he has received the remission of sins and been united with Christ. The act itself does not gain remission, for only God’s imputed grace through faith does that, nor is there any power in the water as such. But the ordinance of baptism stands as a sign on a highway, confirming that we have left the state of sin and entered the state of grace. We can therefore know that we are saved, for it is confirmed in baptism.

Finally, our Wycliffe friends and all others who suppose, perhaps correctly, that the Church of Christ overstates the case for baptism are to remember that such a concern should work both ways. Maybe they understate the role of baptism. Since the Wycliffe people gloriously translate all these scriptures on baptism into thousands of languages, I suggest that their position on baptism be strictly a scriptural one, apart from any theological deductions. Let these passages on baptism simply be read to the people in their vernacular, without comment, and let the people decide for themselves. And let their recruits, whether from the Church of Christ or wherever, agree simply to read what the Bible says about baptism. Surely no one in this entire translation organization will offer any objection to their workers reading their own translations about baptism to those they teach.

And if those of us in Churches of Christ believe what we preach, that it is the word of God that we want for the people, then no explanations are needed on our part. After all, there is nothing sacrosanct about our interpretations. We have yet to demonstrate that we really believe that the Bible itself is sufficient. We are usually very eager to see to it that our interpretation is part of the package, and we feel more secure if we send one of our missionaries along with the Bible to make sure the people understand it the way we do! --- the Editor