http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=806&b=John
The Bible's Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary?
by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.
According
to numerous skeptics, the Bible is inconsistent regarding whether or
not water baptism is necessary (e.g., Drange, 1996; Morgan, 2003; cf.
Wells, 2001). In Dennis McKinsey’s book,
Biblical Errancy (2000),
he lists several verses that teach the need for one to be baptized in
order to be saved (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21;
etc.), but then he lists four verses (John 4:2; 1 Corinthians
1:14,16,17) which allegedly teach that baptism “is not a necessity” (p.
61). According to these men, Jesus and Paul were confused regarding the
purpose of baptism.
There is no doubt that Jesus and His apostles taught the essentiality
of being immersed in water for salvation. After Jesus commissioned His
apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature,” He stated that “he who believes and is baptized will be
saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16;
cf. Matthew 28:19). The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter
spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, were
told: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before becoming a
Christian, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The
biblical solution to the problem of soul-damning sin is that the person
who has heard the Gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented
of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order
to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English
word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word
baptizo,
meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p.
94).] According to Peter, “baptism,” corresponding to Noah’s salvation
through water, “now saves us…(not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Although baptism is no
less, nor more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding
what to do to be saved, the New Testament clearly teaches that
water immersion is the point at which a person is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If it is the case then that baptism is essential for salvation, then
why did the apostle John write: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the
Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than
John (
though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),
He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3, emp. added)?
And why did the apostle Paul write to the church at Corinth: “
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name….
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17, emp. added)? Do these statements indicate that baptism is
not necessary for a person to be saved as skeptics allege? No, they do not.
First, John did not indicate that Jesus thought baptism was
unnecessary; he merely stated the fact that Jesus did not personally do
the baptizing; rather, His disciples did (John 4:2). The phrase in 4:1
regarding Jesus “baptizing” more disciples than John is simply a figure
of speech where a person is represented as doing something when, in
fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph
indicated on one occasion that his brothers sold him into Egypt (Genesis
45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites
(who then sold him into Egypt). This is a well-known principle in law—a
person who acts through another to break the law (e.g., paying someone
to commit murder) is deemed by authorities to be guilty of breaking the
law himself. Similarly, Jesus did not
personally baptize anyone. But,
His teaching and influence
caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the
circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was
responsible for people being baptized. Thus, this passage actually
implies that Jesus commanded that His listeners be baptized. It in no
way contradicts teachings found elsewhere in the Bible.
Second, Paul’s statements in his letter to the church at Corinth must
be taken in their proper context in order to understand their true
meaning. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul was dealing with the division
that was plaguing the Corinthian Christians. He had heard of the
controversy in Corinth, and begged them to stand united, and resolve
their differences.
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among
you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in
the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my
brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions
among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I
am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of
Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest
anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also
baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I
baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach
the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).
Later, Paul added:
For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not
carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,”
and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul,
and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord
gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the
increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters,
but God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:3-7).
When a person reads 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 in view of the problem of
division in Corinth that Paul was addressing in chapter one and
throughout this letter, he or she has a better understanding of Paul’s
statements regarding baptism. He was not indicating that baptism was
unnecessary, but that people should not glory in the one who baptizes
them. Some of the Corinthians were putting more emphasis on
who baptized them, than on the
one body of Christ to which a person is added when he or she is baptized
(cf. Acts 2:41,47; Ephesians 4:4). Paul was thankful that he did not
personally baptize any more Corinthians than he did, lest they boast in
his name, rather than in the name of
Christ (1:15).
Likely, this is the same reason why “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but
His disciples.” As Albert Barnes surmised: “[I]f
he [Jesus—
EL]
had baptized, it might have made unhappy divisions among his followers:
those might have considered themselves most worthy or honoured who had
been baptized by
him” (1956, p. 213, emp. in orig.). Paul
understood that the fewer people he personally baptized, the less likely
they were to rejoice in his name. [In 1 Corinthians 1:13, Paul implied
that the only way to be saved is to be baptized into the name of Christ,
saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name
of Paul?”] Paul’s desire was for converts to tie themselves to the
Savior, and not to himself. He knew that “there is salvation in no one
else” but Jesus; “for there is no other name under heaven that has been
given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul concerned
himself with preaching, and, like Jesus, left others to do the
baptizing.
When Paul stated: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the
gospel,” he meant that preaching was his main work, and that others
could immerse the converts. He did not mean by this statement that
baptism is unimportant, but that the
baptizer
is inconsequential. Consider this: If Paul did not baptize, but
preached, and, if others baptized those who heard Paul’s teachings, what
can we infer about the
content of Paul’s teachings? The truth
is, at some point, he must have instructed the unsaved to be baptized
(which is exactly what occurred in Corinth—read Acts 18:1-11; 1
Corinthians 6:11). Similar to how we logically infer from the Ethiopian
eunuch’s baptism (Acts 8:36-39), that when Philip “preached Jesus to
him” (8:35), he informed the eunuch of the essentiality of baptism, we
can truthfully affirm that Paul taught that baptism is essential for
salvation. The allegation that Paul and Jesus ever considered baptism
non-essential, simply is unfounded.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1956),
Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Drange, Theodore M. (1996), “The Argument from the Bible,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000),
Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.
Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Wells, Steve (2001),
Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line],
URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.
These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress
will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”1
What
do Americans call it when a doctor uses a knife-like device and suction
from a powerful hose and pump (“29 times more powerful than a household
vacuum cleaner”) to chop and suck a human being out of the mother’s
womb (“Abortion Methods,” 2010)? What is it called when a doctor uses
plier-like devices to twist and tear a four-month-old unborn baby into
pieces? (Usually this procedure requires crushing the baby’s skull and
snapping the child’s spine in order to extract him/her.) How do
Americans feel about a procedure where a doctor injects a strong salt
solution through a mother’s abdomen, which acts as a corrosive and burns
an unborn child inside and out, normally causing the child to suffer
for an hour or more before dying (“Abortion Methods”)? What do Americans
think about such actions?
