Baptism

Why must people confuse the "plain meaning" of scripture when it does not fit within their theological paradigm?

I have read, heard, and researched from countless evangelical, free, protestant 'church' communities that baptism is not necessary for salvation or that it's something symbolic that is really not a 'big deal' in the life of a believer. Yet there are other protestants that say that baptism is necessary and that it is okay for infants to be baptized. Well, what is it? Aren't they all using the same Bible?!

A local community 'church' says that it's important to be baptized but that it does not save you. However, they seem to forget or to gloss over some important verses from 1 Peter 3:18-21, where Peter speaks about how Noah and his family were saved through water and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now." Baptism is the first step towards living in Christ. Indeed it initiates the person into the family, so to speak. Faith in Christ and baptism are necessary for salvation. I believe it's in the confusion about the efficacy of the sacrament itself where things begin to come into contention. But I must back it up further by defining what exactly is a sacrament and even further to show that this sacrament has been explained the exact same way for 2000 years down through the ages by Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, which according to St. Paul is the "pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Taylor Marshall over at Called To Communion says,

"Sacramental baptism is the means by which Christ regenerates the soul, washes away original sin, and incorporates a person into His mystical Body. It infallibly confers grace. Christ said that unless a person be baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (cf. Jn 3:3-5). And since God “wills all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), it was fitting that this sacrament might be administered by anyone and with an element that is universally available – water. Whereever there are humans, there is water. The universal desire for humanity’s salvation can be discerned by God’s generosity in this regard.

Since baptism is necessary for salvation, Pope Gelasius I (pope from AD 492 till 496) decreed that the baptisms of laymen and laywomen were valid and accepted by Christians everywhere. Sacred Tradition even records that the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptized by St Philip in Acts 8, brought back the saving sacrament of baptism to Ethiopia."

I've also recently sent an e-mail to a local protestant community church pastor concerning their baptism brochure. I will reprint the conversation in full:

Hello and good day,

Sorry this is out of the blue, but I wanted to make you aware of something that I saw in your brochure on baptism that I found on the internet. I'm slightly local and I know some people who attend [church name]. They like it there and browsing your site I found this brochure. It made me curious and so naturally, I want to find out. :)

I looked at the baptism brochure and I find that there are some things that do not make sense to me. All I am looking for is clarity. Specifically, and I guess the one that stands out the most to me, is when it describes that "It is important to understand that baptism does not “save” you." Why was the word "save" put in quotes? Why can't baptism and faith in Christ, working hand in hand, save you? Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both/and?

The Bible clearly states in 1 Peter 3:21 that " ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (NIV) [emphasis mine]. How does that verse get reconciled with what is stated in the brochure? Does it just get dismissed if it doesn't fit? It seems to me that it effects salvation because of Christ's Resurrection. God can set aside anything to be holy, right? Is it much of a stretch (on our part) to grant God the power to use water in this way? I find elsewhere that in Titus 3:5-7, St. Paul states "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (NIV). Again, how does that verse get reconciled with what is stated in the brochure? Clearly, to me, the washing being spoken about is baptism. In John 3:3-5, he records that, "³ Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again'.⁴ 'How can someone be born when they are old?' Nicodemus asked. 'Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born! '⁵ Jesus answered, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit' " (NIV). When I read this passage of scripture, I cannot but help think of baptism. Christ seems to clearly state that it is required of all believers not just symbolically to be baptized, but that it actually is necessary for salvation; albeit just one piece of the puzzle. Or what about what Jesus commanded at the end of Matthew's gospel, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matt 28:19 (NIV). I just find that there are numerous examples in the Bible that are overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that baptism does indeed have a hand in one's salvation.

The Spirit clearly has involvement in all aspects of the believers life. It seems that, even from a cursory reading, baptism as stated in scripture effects some piece of salvation. I can't find any verse in the Bible that says "baptism does not save you" or something to that effect. Quite the opposite. And just because it is not mentioned in a particular verse does not mean that it is not essential. Can I clarify my thinking?

Moving on, another aspect that stood out to me was the last paragraph on the back. The one which states, "Some churches baptize infants. At Crosspoint we don’t. We only baptize those who have made a decision to believe in Christ’s death as a payment for their sin. In the Bible, men and women were baptized following their belief in Jesus. Therefore, if you were baptized as a baby, we encourage you to be baptized by immersion as a believer." Focusing more on the aspect of getting baptized again, where in sacred scripture does it require someone to be baptized again if they were previously baptized as a child? One time should suffice! If someone is baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" it's a valid baptism, correct? As stated by Jesus Himself, "Spirit gives birth to spirit." Wouldn't that be the same Spirit that someone has throughout their life working in them and with them? It doesn't go away or not work because someone else wished that the person be baptized as a child. Isn't that how the covenant was passed on in the days before Jesus? The Jewish parents would circumcise the child to indicate that they too were a part of the covenant family. Through a parent's faith, they want their child to be set aside for Christ and to grow knowing him. In the Bible other people's faith also procured healing/salvation/miracles for their friends (i.e.- the paralytic that was lowered through the roof by his friends). Why is it frowned upon if someone is baptized as an infant? Christians have been doing it for 2,000 years to my knowledge starting with the apostles. Why the change and what is the reasoning behind what was written in the brochure? Is it more to show people of a particular church that a person is serious about joining? Is it a mis-trust of God that he couldn't have worked through the first baptism, so just to make sure, it must be done again? Especially if there is a record of this person being baptized, I do not understand why it should be done again? Could you help me understand the reasoning? (Sorry for all the questions!)

I ask all these things in charity and I truly want to know how these can be reconciled with what some parts of the Bible say and with what is contained in the brochure. My curiosity sometimes gets the best of me :) Please do not think of this as an attack. We are called to defend our faith when necessary and there are many things that are hard and difficult to sort through and understand. We build each other up as Christians. I eagerly await your response. Have a very blessed day!

Faith seeking understanding...

And his response was this:

Thanks for the note.

Regarding the idea that baptism doesn’t save you…the quotes don’t really mean anything, and probably need to be removed to avoid confusion I guess. The truth we are trying to convey in that section is Ephesians 2:8-9. That we are saved only by grace, through faith. Not by any ‘good works’ we do. We believe that baptism is going public with your faith. It is an outward profession to the community and church family around you that you have given your life to Christ, and follow Him in all things. It represents that we are dying to self, and the old creation is gone, and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Regarding the baptism of infants. We encourage people who have been baptized as an infant, if they have now put their faith and trust in Christ for salvation, to follow Jesus’ example in baptism. It is not a requirement that we put on people, simply an invitation that if they are being led by the Spirit to take that step now as a student or an adult to respond. We have people who were baptized as infants, and yet have not done it as an adult. We’re ok with that. We also have people (just this last Sunday, we baptized someone like this) who were baptized as an infant, but now as a student/adult, want to take that step of obedience following their decision to give their lives to Jesus and follow Him as their Lord and Savior.

I hope that helps clarify our beliefs and practices. I’m thankful your friends enjoy [church name]. God bless!

Not to be harsh, but this is not the answer that I was hoping to receive. I wanted something more deep and more "convincing." I suppose this is the best he can do though as a protestant minister. How can we foster more fruitful dialogue?