IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION?

A few issues back I had a piece about the Norris-Wallace debate in Fort Worth back in 1934. I observed that Foy E. Wallace, Jr. affirmed in that debate that baptism is essential to salvation, and I criticized this as a vulnerable proposition, one that is questionable both in the light of Scripture and in the thinking of the best minds of our own history. I stated in the article that the Bible does not teach that baptism is essential to salvation, but that it is a deduction that we draw from what it does teach.

Readers have both called and written, expressing concern over my position, and asking for clarification. It is evident that “the essentiality of baptism,” which originated not in Scripture but in the dogmas of Roman Catholicism, is one of our sacred cows. And yet I understand the misgivings of those who have expressed concern, for the Scriptures are explicit in what they say about baptism, and it is understandable, considering where we come from, that we would make such a deduction. But it is in order for someone to remind us that the Bible says nothing about the essentiality of baptism.

One of our readers in Chattanooga sent us a newspaper account of a big TV debate, to be taped there May 17, on “Is Baptism Necessary to Salvation?,” between two professors from Harding University, Jerry Jones and Jimmy Allen, and a Baptist minister named David Kingdon and James Bjornstad, a professor at Northeastern Bible College. The Harding men are Church of Christ preachers and are affirming the proposition.

This shows that my piece about Norris-Wallace was relevant, for our folk are still debating the essentiality of baptism. This debate will be televised in more than 3,000 cities near the end of June by the Christian Broadcasting Network, so you might watch for it if you are interested.

This news item gives me an occasion to write further on this question. Understand, for me, baptism was essential to my salvation, for I believed that this was a command of God and that it was for the remission of my sins. Just as for me it is essential that I gather on each Lord’s day and break bread with fellow believers, for I understand this to be the will of God for me. But in neither case, whether the Supper or baptism, can I make it an absolute for everyone else, for we are all at different stages in our understanding and submission to the will of God.

So I would be comfortable, in the light of Scripture, affirming that It is essential for one to obey what he understands to be the will of God. This of course is subject to a legalistic interpretation, for we are not saved by what we do but by God’s grace, and none of us responds perfectly to what we concede to be essential. So I would immerse even that proposition deeply in the grace of God.

I can also affirm what the Scriptures actually say about baptism. I believe it is (in some sense) “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), “the washing of regeneration” (Tit. 3:5) — note that it is the washing of regeneration, not regeneration itself!, and that it is the formal act that puts us “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). It is also “the answer of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21), and, in some sense, it “washes away sin” (Acts 22:16) and saves us (1 Pet. 3:21).

If we will speak only as the Bible speaks, our position cannot be gainsaid. Any informed Bible teacher would be reluctant to challenge the above paragraph, but if I deduce from the above that baptism is therefore essential to going to heaven, I conclude what cannot be proven. It might be essential for me and for you but not necessarily everyone else, unless one supposes that everyone has the same measure of light and opportunity and therefore the same obligation before God.

If there is even one unbaptized person in heaven, the proposition is false. If the God of heaven receives a single unbaptized soul from all the billions of earth, then baptism is not essential to salvation. Indeed, this proposition would tie the hand of God and compel him to withdraw his mercy, for each soul must be baptized to enter heaven. So those who insist on the absolute essentiality of baptism would circumvent a God who “loves mercy.”

Take this case: a Church of Christ preacher leads a penitent believer into a swollen stream to immerse him. An under current suddenly sweeps the man downstream before he was able to immerse him. The body is not found until the next day.

Ah, but that never happens, we lamely respond. That very thing did happen, and it was reported in a Dallas paper recently, though it did not identify the denomination of the preacher, as I recall.

However firm your position on baptism may be, can you really believe that the God of heaven would send such a person to hell when he was in the very act of trying to obey Him? If you do, I can only conclude that you have a demon for a God. If you don’t, then you don’t believe that baptism is essential to salvation. If there can be one exception, there can be many, such as those who are seeking to do His will, sincerely and searchingly, but they have not yet come to an understanding about baptism.

Allow me to frame a proposition: It is inconceivable that anyone who dies loving God will be lost. You will quote the passage that says if one loves God he will obey God’s commands. Right! To the degree that he understands those commands. This is why I agree with Alexander Campbell that there is only one absolute must: sincerity before God, or a love for God that hungers to obey Him in all things, according to his understanding. This is the proposition that really bothers me, for how many of us really love God like that, whether baptized or not?

And one more proposition: It is inconceivable that anybody that has life in Christ will be in hell. When does life come to the sinner? When he believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God! “He that believes on me has eternal life,” Jesus said in Jn. 5:24. Again and again the Scriptures make it clear that one has life when he believes. Even the Church of Christ recognizes this, even if not enthusiastically, for we concede that baptism typifies the birth of the child of God, not the beginning of his life. Life begins with faith! Just as physical life does not begin at birth, so the believer’s life does not begin at baptism but when he accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior.

There must be many who have life in Christ who have not yet confirmed this in the ordinance that God has ordained for this purpose, not because they are rebellious or indifferent, but because they do not yet understand. Are we going to say that all such ones have to go to hell? They have life and yet lost! Can we live with such conclusions?

The position I am taking in no wise compromises the teaching on baptism in Scripture. We are to teach what the Bible says on the subject and thus immerse believers into Christ in reference to the remission of their sins, noting that the church universal has always recognized baptism as that ordinance that brings one into fellowship with Christ and his church. But let us not circumvent what the Bible says with deductions that are legalistic and, if I may say so, cruel.

The doctrine of the “essentiality of baptism,” born in Roman dogma, has led to some grievous concepts and practices. Take the Roman Catholic nurse that is compelled to “baptize” even a fetus or a stillborn child. It is a serious question with some Roman Catholics as to what they should do with aborted tissue, lest the soul they believe to be there be lost in hell.

Church of Christ dogma on the essentiality of baptism moves in a different but similar direction. It would dechristianize a large portion of the Christian world and consign some of God’s noblest saints to an eternal hell. Thank God that the judgment seat is in heaven and not Nashville—or Chattanooga!—the Editor.

We confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin.

Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly “for the remission of sins!” The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins.

—Alexander Campbell, Macalla Debate, p. 116