A RESPONSE TO "12 REASONS WHY BAPTISM IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION"

Several weeks ago one of the listeners to our daily call-in radio program, the director of something called "Christian Research Ministries” sent me a copy of a newsletter entitled The Researcher. This newsletter is published by "The Research and Education Foundation," which claims that its mission is to "investigate the fraudulent claims of secular humanists, Marxists, cultists, pagans, and occultists which threaten the survival of the Judeo-Christian basis of Western culture." The Executive Director of the "Research and Education Foundation" is Dr. Robert Morey. He has received degrees in theology, philosophy, and apologetics. He has authored more than 20 books, some of which have been listed in Christianity Today's annual "Best Books of the Year." After reading of its purpose and reading of its director, you can imagine how surprised I was to find that practically the entire issue of the newsletter I received was devoted to an expose of the "Campbellite Cult."

Included in the newsletter was an article entitled "12 Reasons Why Baptism Is Not Essential For Salvation."  This particular article was typical of the half-truths, blatant misrepresentations, outright lies, and false doctrine that filled the "Research” from front to back. In this tract, I would like to look at each of the "12 Reasons" and see if they are valid objections to what I teach concerning baptism.

Reason Number One: "If the Campbellite doctrine of baptism is true, then the very men who founded the 'Restoration Movement' which later developed into the ' Church of Christ ' churches were never saved! All Thomas and Alexander Campbell had was the infant baptism they received from the Presbyterians and the adult baptism they received from the Baptists! They were never baptized a third time 'in order to obtain remission of sins according to the Campbellite doctrine of baptism. How can the Campbellite church, gospel, and baptism be of God when the men who 'restored' those very things were unsaved children of the devil according to their own teachings?"

When one reads something like this, it is hard to know exactly where to start to answer it. I marvel at its lack of scholarship, understanding, and historical accuracy. The Restoration Movement was not the beginning of a new Church, as the article implies; it was the recognition of the one true church that had existed since Acts 2. It was an appeal to do away with all the man-made churches and to be a part of that one church of the Bible by rejecting all human creeds and dogmas and adhering only to the Word of the Lord. Thomas and Alexander Campbell were great men, but they were not the founders of the Restoration Movement. They were part of it, but the ideas they expressed were not new and peculiar to them. What of men such as James O'Kelley, Rice Haggard, Elias Smith, Abner Jones, and so on; all men who pre-dated the  Campbells ?

As far as the baptism of the  Campbells is concerned, the statement made in the article is an outright misrepresentation. Alexander and Thomas Campbell's baptisms came about as a result of their study of scriptures concerning it. Understanding what the Bible said about the necessity of baptism, Alexander Campbell contacted a preacher by the name of Matthias Luse, who agreed to immerse him. On  Wednesday, June 12, 1812 , seven people in all, including Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were baptized in Buffalo Creek. Alexander would write, "I had no idea of uniting with the Baptisms more than with the Moravians or the mere Independents." To imply that Alexander Campbell was baptized by immersion to join the Baptists, as Baptist doctrine teaches, is dishonest to the core.

Besides all of this, the most basic question is - What does the baptism or non-baptism of Alexander and Thomas Campbell have to do with whether or not the Bible actually teaches baptism for the remission of sins? The answer is nothing. I don't follow Alexander Campbell or Thomas Campbell. I follow the Bible. Evidently Dr. Morey can't dissociate himself from the idea of following men. The Bible is the rule of faith, not Alexander Campbell, not Thomas Campbell, not even Dr. Robert A. Morey.

Reason Number 2: John the Baptist's baptism did not save anyone although it was done 'for the remission of sins' (Mark 1:4). John clearly stated that his baptism was only of water in contrast to Jesus' baptism which would be of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:1 1). When this is added to the fact that people who had John's baptism were re-baptized with Christian baptism (Acts 19:1-5), it is clear that John's baptism did not save anyone. Since John's baptism did not save anyone, then such terminology as 'for the remission of sins' does not imply baptismal remission. This logically removes many of the arguments used by baptismal re-generationists."

Let's deal with the first argument. Is it true that John's baptism, which was "for the remission of sins" saved no one? I contend that this is a misleading statement. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, remission means "a dismissal, release, is used of the forgiveness of sins...”  In the book of Leviticus, in which various required sacrifices of the Old Law are set forth, in chapters 4 & 5, seven times I find the statement, "It shall be forgiven him" related to the offering of various sin offerings. Were those sins really forgiven? Yes, as they looked forward to the death of Christ. An individual living and dying in obedience under the Old Law before Christ would be saved. Hebrews 9:15 tells us, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

A Jew living after the death of our Lord was required to become a Christian or be lost.

Now then, just as the various sacrifices were given by God, so too was John's baptism. Those who heard it were required to obey and their sins were forgiven, just as sins were forgiven of the Jews by their humble obedience to the commands of the Old Law concerning sacrifices - looking forward to the death of Christ. After our Lord's death, these individuals were required to become Christians, as Acts 19:1-5 makes clear. All sins, under the Old and New Law, were and are forgiven by the blood of Christ, and Dr. Morey must know that.

Morey referred to "Jesus' baptism, which would be of the Holy Spirit" and "Christian baptism." Which one is the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5, and where did the term "Christian baptism" come from anyhow? I don't find that in the scriptures. It implies that Christians are baptized. That is false. Non-Christians are baptized to have their sins forgiven and to become Christians.

Morey wrote, "Such terminology as 'for remission of sins' does not imply baptismal remission." Well, Peter taught, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." If "for the remission of sins" there does not mean remission of sins in Acts 2:38, what does remission of sins mean in Matthew 26:28? For what purpose did Christ shed His blood? What possible purpose could there be for saying remission of sins means what it says in one passage and that it doesn't mean what it says in another? There could be only one possible purpose in such sophistry. Dr. Morey, your prejudice is showing through.

Reason Number Three: "Jesus never baptized anyone (John 4:2). Since He did not baptize anyone, how did He save anyone?"

This reason given by Dr. Morey really gets to the heart of the problem. Dr. Morey has absolutely no idea what New Testament baptism for the remission of sins is all about. When we are scripturally baptized for the remission of sins, we are baptized into the death of Christ. Notice Romans 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Dr. Morey, while Jesus was on earth, living, breathing, talking, and moving about in His human body, He could not baptize anyone into His death because He had not yet died. It is the blood of our Lord that cleanses us from all sin. He shed His blood in His death. In our baptism into His death, we contact that blood.

As far as "How did he save anyone?" is concerned, this is pure sophistry. I am sure that Morey knows the statement of our Lord in Matthew 9:6 as well as I do. Jesus said, "But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house." Jesus had the power on earth to forgive individuals' sins.

This also takes care of Morey's Reason Number Ten in which he stated, "The thief on the cross went to heaven without baptism. Since Christ died before the thief died, the thief went to paradise through the shed blood of Christ (Hebrews 9:14 -17). If baptism is essential to go to heaven, how did the thief get there without being baptized?"

The very fact that Morey makes this argument shows that he knows we are baptized into the death of Christ, wherein He shed His blood, and he just refuses to accept the significance of that. Again, he does err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins.

Reason Number Four: Paul clearly states that baptism is not part of Gospel preaching. “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel” (2 Corinthians  1: 14 -17). Then in I Corinthians 15:1-4, when he summarized the Gospel, no mention of baptism was made, “I made known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you ... that Christ died for our sins ... that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.” This is in agreement with Acts 20:21 when he summarized his preaching as 'Repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.' How can baptism be essential to salvation when it is not part of the Gospel?"

Where do we begin? In the first place, I Corinthians 1:17 is an example of elliptical construction - a "not only, but" construction.     John 12:44 is another example. In I Corinthians 1, Paul mentions the names of several people that he had baptized. Does that mean that Paul had done something that was no part of the gospel?

In verses 10-12, Paul spoke of the divisions existing among the brethren in  Corinth  .    In verse 13 he asks several rhetorical questions, the answer to each being "no." Was Christ divided? No! Was Paul crucified for you? No! How, then, could they say they were of Paul when he hadn't died for them and they had not been baptized in his name? So, part of what made them "of Christ" was that Christ had died for them and they had been baptized in His name. Instead of belittling the importance of baptism, this passage actually shows how important it is.

Morey also tries to imply that the gospel consists of nothing more than the facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. How can you "obey" just facts? Paul stated in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Evidently the gospel contains commands to be obeyed or Paul's statement is silly and untrue. When Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2, he included baptism for the remission of sins. When Philip preached "the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ" in the earlier part of Acts 8, baptism was included because it was part of the response of the people. How did they know to do that if baptism was not part of "the things concerning the  kingdom of God , and the name of Jesus Christ?"

Reason Number Five: “Paul argues in Romans  3:28 -30 that since there is only one God there can be only one way to salvation. This means that whatever is essential to salvation today must be the same throughout all ages. While faith and repentance pass this test, baptism does not because it was not present in the Old Testament. How can baptism be essential to salvation when it was not present in the Old Testament?"

In the first place, Morey has missed the point of these verses. Paul is making the point that God is the God of both the Jew and the Gentile and that He will save both alike.

Secondly, I agree that faith and repentance were necessary under the Old Law, but Dr. Morey, what about obedience? If the Jews under the Law of Moses had failed to obey the commands of that Law, would they have been saved? Would they even have had faith if they had not obeyed? Morey, and all those like him, separate faith and obedience, and that is not right. Paul begins the Roman letter by referring to the "obedience to the faith' (Romans 1:5), and he closes it with "the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26 ).

The Jews under the Old Law were required to obey the commands of that Law or be lost. Their faith demanded obedience. Today we are required to obey the commands of the Lord, commands that include baptism, or we will be lost.

Reason Number Six: "Paul argues that justification has always been 'by faith, apart from the works of the law.' Abraham: Before the law (Romans 4:1-50; David: After the law (Romans 4:6-8). No Campbellite, Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, United Pentecostal, etc., has ever produced one verse where justification is by baptism."

If only he could understand the necessity of obedience, Morey would be okay. The statement, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," is found in Genesis 15:6. It is assumed that at the time this statement refers to, Abraham was an alien sinner who was, at that point of time, counted righteous because he believed. This is assumed because all the facts are to the contrary.

In Genesis 12 God appeared unto Abraham in  Ur f the Chaldees and commanded him to go into a land which would be shown unto him. He promised to bless him and to make him a -great nation.

"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went" (Hebrews 11:8). There's obedience again. Abraham was counted righteous because of his obedient faith. Dr. Morey, if Abraham had not gone as God told him to do, would he have been counted righteous.

When Abraham was told in Genesis 13 to "walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it," he did.  He obeyed. Would Abraham have been counted righteous if he had not obeyed? Would he have been justified?

I cannot understand why individuals such as Dr. Morey refuse to see. Just as God commanded Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees, Jesus commands us to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:3 8). If we refuse to do that and kick up a fuss, then we do not have faith and we are not justified. Dr. Morey, read Hebrews 11, the great chapter of faith, and learn the role that obedience plays in faith.

Reason Number Seven: "Baptism is the N.T. parallel to circumcision just as the Lord's Supper is the parallel to the Passover (Colossians 2:11 -12). Since circumcision 'is nothing' (I Corinthians 7:19 ) and did not save anyone, then why should baptism?"

Dr. Morey's reading of Colossians 2:11-12 reminds me of a statement Paul made concerning the Jews when they were confronted by the Gospel of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 3:13-14 we find, "And not as Moses which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament, which vail is done away in Christ." Surely when Morey reads Colossians 2, the vail of Calvinism obscures his understanding. Colossians 2:11-12 teaches the exact opposite of what he teaches.

In the first place, it is a spiritual circumcision Paul is talking about, "the circumcision made without hands." Romans 2:28-29 helps us to understand a little better with these words, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Secondly, Colossians  2:11 says that this “circumcision" involves the "putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh." Is a person saved if they have not "put off the body of the sins of the flesh?" Certainly not! It is the very same thing Paul spoke of in Romans 6:4-6 where we read, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

When does this happen? When we are "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:12 ).

Colossians 2:11-12 demonstrates that the person who understands what the Bible teaches concerning baptism, understands that in it God is operating. It is the circumcision "of the heart." It is when "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Jesus Christ" takes place. The one who humbly submits and is baptized for the remission of sins is confessing to the world that he believes what the Bible says on this subject. The one who fusses and tries to get around the simple teaching does not! Dr. Morey refers to I Corinthians 7:19 and quotes only "circumcision is nothing." He must know that Paul is speaking of physical circumcision here. If he doesn't then he ought to quit passing himself off as a Bible teacher. The whole verse reads as follows: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." One of God's commands, as stated by Peter, is "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Dr. Morey, have you been baptized for the remission of sins?

Reason Number Eight: "Paul points out that Abraham was justified by faith before he obeyed God in circumcision (Romans 4:9-11, 16, 23-5:2). This clearly applies to us.

Abraham                            You and me

Justified by faith before       Justified by faith

he was circumcised

The Campbellite doctrine destroys the parallel between circumcision and baptism."

Dr. Morey's statement implies that Abraham was justified by faith before he obeyed God, period. Romans 4 revolves around the quotation found in verse 3, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." This statement is found in Genesis 15:6. Before that statement was made, had Abraham obeyed God?  If he had, then that obedience was essential to him being counted righteous. Hebrews 11:8 tells us, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went." This occurred in Genesis 12, some years before the statement of Genesis 15:6. Dr. Morey, if Abraham had not obeyed and gone out, would he have been justified? If Abraham had come up with 12 reasons not to do what God had told him to do, as you have concerning baptism, would he have been justified?

By the way, Dr. Morey, circumcision was a "sign of the covenant" (Genesis 17:1 1). It was not what brought one into the covenant. Genesis 17:14 says, "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Every Jewish child was a member of that covenant by virtue of his descent from Abraham. If a person were not already in the covenant, then it could not be said that they broke it by failing to be circumcised.

Baptism, on the other hand, puts one into Christ (Galatians 3:26 -27). That is a very big difference that we must not fail to see.

Reason Number Nine: "Cornelius believed the Gospel, was saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues and then got baptized (Acts 10:44-48).  Did not Cornelius' salvation take place before his baptism?  The text clearly states that Cornelius and his family heard the word, believed it, were saved, filled with the spirit, spoke in tongues and then were baptized. None of this should have taken place if the Campbellite doctrine was true."

Well, now, let's just look at Acts 10:44-48 and see if the text does indeed clearly state the things Morey says it does.

    "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Dr. Morey, if the text so clearly states that Cornelius and his family heard the word, believed it, were saved   ' filled with the spirit, spoke in tongues, and then were baptized, how come "were saved" isn't in the text, particularly where you put it? Dr. Morey, your theology is showing.

One is also made to wonder how Peter could have "commanded" them to be baptized, when according to your doctrine, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. They could have been baptized, but it certainly wasn't essential, certainly not something to be "commanded."

Why fight it, Dr. Morey? Just do what the Bible says and don't add words that are not there.

Reason Number Ten: (See page 9).

Reason Number Eleven: The Campbellite doctrine makes salvation dependent upon the availability of water and of a Campbellite. While someone who is alone can believe in Jesus in the desert or at the North Pole, will his salvation be denied because no water for a Campbellite baptism is present?"

I am used to reasoning from the scriptures. As you can see, Dr. Morey's argument contains no scriptural references because it has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Bible says.

If there are people living at the North Pole or in the desert without sufficient water for baptism, I would like to know how they are doing it. Surely Dr. Morey knows that water is an essential element for life. Without it, people die.

The important question is, Does this hypothetical situation change what the Bible Visa Absolutely not. Dr. Morey would be a lot better served by simply doing what the Bible says instead of coming up with all kinds of ways to try to get around it. I am sure that there is plenty of water where Dr. Morey is in which he could obey the Lord in baptism if he chose to do so.

As far as a Carnpbellite is concerned, I've never met one and am certain that none exist. Morey needs to present one thing I believe, teach, or practice that originate with Campbell. Since he cannot do that, he needs to stop throwing around names meant to do nothing but prejudice the minds of his readers. One who has the truth does not need to stoop to such obvious tactics.

Reason Number Twelve: “The Campbellite doctrine confuses the symbol with what it represents and is based on a superstitious and magical view of baptism. Since the Carnpbellites admit that the bread and wine are only symbols of the body and blood of Jesus, then on what grounds do they deny that baptism is only a symbol of salvation?"    

    Was there something magical or superstitious about the River Jordan when Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy? Of course not. Naarnan was cleansed through his obedience to the commands of the Lord. There is nothing magical or superstitious about baptism either. It is what the Lord commands. He tells us that it "doth now save us" (I Peter 3:21); therefore, we do it without complaint and without trying to get around it.

The Bible does speak of baptism as a symbol, a figure, or a form. It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-5), and in our baptism we are baptized into that death (Romans 6:3). We are also told in Romans 6:17-18, "...that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."    When did we become "free from sin?" When we obeyed that form of doctrine. The word translated "form" there is from the very same root word translated as "figure" in I Peter 3:21 and refers to baptism.

If a person intends to throw around the idea of a symbol, form, or figure, he'd better make sure he understands what the figure is.

 My dear friends, isn't it so much easier and wiser to simply accept that the Bible says concerning the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins and do it, rather than spend so much time and energy trying to come up with ways to get around this clear Bible command?