Author: Randy

Is the Gospel Really This Complicated?

The very first comment I got on the previous article was, “Salvation is not this complicated”. That’s a great point and really got me thinking, is the Gospel as complicated as the prior four articles and this article would suggest? It shouldn’t be, right? Even the simplest person should be able to understand the Gospel and be saved.

Then why do people like me make it out to be so complicated? And I’ve just been exploring one facet of salvation: must a person experience the Believer’s Baptism to be saved? I could have answered the question with a simple yes or no, but that would be of no value to anyone, especially those who believe the other position or have no position. In addition, my purpose is not to explain my own position but to give both sides of an important subject a thorough analysis.

Is it mankind who makes something simple out to be complicated? Is it Satan? It’s certainly plausible that mankind would take a simple message convolute it. It’s also plausible that Satan would feed people lies and half-lies to confuse them and thereby complicate their understanding of the Gospel. Therefore, it’s plausible and let’s just say likely that these things are the cause of why there are so many different Christian doctrines and denominations now and throughout time. But what about the Bible itself? As the source of doctrine, is it complicated to begin with? After all the Bible is more than a paragraph long. Even if you just take the New Testament, it’s a decent-sized book. Why isn’t it shorter if the Gospel is simple?

Since the advent of Christianity in Acts 2, there has been documented misunderstanding and confusion. As discussed in The First Gospel, God had to perform several major miracles to convince the Jewish Christians that the Mosaic Law had been fulfilled by the Messiah and was therefore no longer useful to relate to God, and that Gentiles could become Christians without first converting to Judaism. Acts 15 and the book of Galatians give the sordid details of the struggle within the early church. Paul’s books are so sophisticated people can invest decades going over them to extract as much meaning as they can and still miss many of their points. Did Paul over complicate the Gospel? Can the simplest person understand the Gospel from reading them? In 2Pet 3:15-16, Peter says about Paul’s writings, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand” and that some people took advantage of this to distort the message. Yet Peter starts by saying that Paul wrote “with the wisdom God have him”.

It is therefore my theory is that the Gospel is both simple and complicated—and I’m not just trying to be middle-of-the-road—so hear me out. The Gospel is simple for those who need simple and complicated to those who need complicated. Those who need a simple Gospel aren’t less intelligent or less important than those who need a complicated one—it’s just that God has made different kinds of people. It’s like 1Cor 12 says, “The body is made up of different parts” and “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’”.

Just as there are pros and cons to be a foot or hand in the body, there are pros and cons to being simple- or complicated-Gospel individuals. Those who need a simple Gospel are more at the mercy of their church’s doctrine. They therefore still need to know scriptures that support and define the Gospel; and as they mature, they should become aware of alternative viewpoints. For those who need a complicated Gospel, they need to diligently explore their own view and other views while not becoming conceited or confusing themselves (and others) with “heady”arguments. The following scripture applies to all Christians:

1 Peter3:15 But make sure that in your hearts you honor Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have. Be ready to give the reason for it. But do it gently and with respect.

The two types should therefore seek to understand each other and give the other side much grace and the benefit of the doubt. My blog and this series are clearly for those on the complicated side of things, yet I would hope both types would be able to get something out of each article.

Your Method of Interpreting the Bible

It would be difficult to do a survey of baptizers and non-baptizers to look for the underlying causes of their differences, but I believe strongly it originates from a foundational difference in how each side views and interprets the Bible (hereafter for simplicity I’ll refer to this as one’s “disposition”).

Both the baptizer and non-baptizer sides consist of varying levels of Bible knowledge from scholars to parishioners, and both sides consist of all manner of personalities, races, cultures, and both simple and complex Gospel types. How can such diverse groups be distilled into just two dispositions? To be sure there is a large spectrum of dispositions, but baptizers tend to be on the dogmatic side while non-baptizers tend to be more tolerant.

Inarguably, Jesus says “baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Mat 28:19), Peter says “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38), and Paul says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal 3:26). For those on the dogmatic side of the interpretation spectrum, this is enough—the only way to change their minds is to show where the Bible logically means something else. For those on the tolerate side of the spectrum, even as I listed those scriptures, objections like “but other verses say…”, “But John 3:16 says…”, “or what about people who don’t believe this way?” arose in their minds.

What are some other comparative words? On the dogmatic side, words like literal, absolute, serious, solemn, legalistic, objective, and logical paint the picture. On the tolerant side, the words are figurative, sentimental, broad, reasonable, subjective, and moderate. Note that I am not describing personality types—I am describing two fundamental dispositions which affect how one interprets and connects the many verses of the Bible.

Whatever words I choose, both sides will have complaints because subject is complicated and difficult to encapsulate by a few words. Nevertheless, I am convinced it is because of these two dispositions that such different conclusions can be reached from the same scriptures. This is also why it’s nearly impossible for one side to influence the other.  It is as if they are speaking different languages.

Outliers are Ostracized

In the minds of those whose positions are not so absolute, the fact that there are so many denominations out there gives rise to doubt as to which one is exactly right. Yet they share a set of core and essential doctrines; therefore, although they’re happy and content with their own denomination, they’re alright with most of the others.  Every denomination sharing the core doctrines are considered saved and not a threat. Here are some common essentials of the Christian faith:

• The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
• Jesus is God incarnate.
• Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead.
• Salvation is by grace alone through faith.

Denominations which have added essentials (e.g. baptism) or are missing essentials (e.g. Jesus incarnate) are judged as outsiders of the mainstream. Here are some large outlier denominations:

• The Church of Christ, who hold to the additional baptism requirement.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses, who don’t believe Jesus is part of the Godhead.
• Church of Latter Day Saints, who have an entirely new text in addition to the Bible.
• Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), who believe the Sabbath and other OC laws must be followed to remain saved.

None of these churches even like being grouped together—but that’s just it: they’re all severely dogmatic. They believe there is one absolute truth throughout the Bible and that they’ve figured it out what it is.

Baptizers and possibly SDAs are in a curious position in that they share the core doctrines but have added additional ones. This means that some mainstream denominations consider them saved even though the opposite isn’t true. They are forced to begrudgingly admit that, in spite of their heretical teachings, they are still saved.

Outliers don’t see the fact they stand out as a problem or a concern. The Bible is full of examples where God chose a small remnant and disavowed those outside of it. Jesus warns that there will be persecution and division. In addition, Paul warns of false teachings and doctrines entering the church (Gal 1:8-9). Therefore, the fact that a church is an outlier does not immediately discount it. Everyone will stand before God alone and cannot claim their church as the reason they should be allowed to enter.

For this reason, it is up to everyone to learn and know for themselves what the true Gospel is and how to accept it. The church one chooses will naturally play a big role in determining this, so one must choose wisely. Far too many people simply go to the church their family or friends go to or choose one based on trivial reasons like distance or parking.

The very fact that there are disagreements about the Gospel between well-meaning and scholarly people which have existed for centuries should give caution to anyone who thinks this is an easy issue. Clearly some Scriptures are more literal than others and some are more figurative, but if one is going to be dogmatic about a belief, they had better know the relevant scriptures and have considered all aspects of context. They should not believe something simply because their church, pastor, family, or even (and especially) the majority believe it.

The Best Baptizer Verse

If I had to pickout a single scripture that is the hardest for me to see in any different way, it would be the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Here is Jesus after his Law-ending death on the cross and Spirit-providing resurrection giving final instructions to his Apostles. The instructions seem to tell the Apostles how to go about saving the world: they should go to all nations, explicitly baptize those they encounter and teach them to obey everything he taught them.  Were it not for the “baptism” clause, non-baptizers would have no problem with these instructions.  And judging by how the Apostles proceeded, it is clear the Apostles understood this as water baptism. How could Jesus have not meant water baptism? Here are some possibilities:

• This doesn’t mean that how the Apostles took it was what Jesus intended. As can be seen in Acts, there were a lot of things God had to miraculously correct them.
• Baptism was used by the Jews, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples to convert Gentiles to Judaism and to recommit Jews to the Law. Here Jesus is telling them to go out into the world where they will find Gentiles and Jews among the nations. Therefore, perhaps he was referring to John’s baptism.
• Assuming the NC didn’t start until a little later at Pentecost, it would make sense that Jesus still wouldn’t give instructions that would contradict the Law. Jesus could be going along with their current understanding that a person would need to convert to Judaism first.
• Jesus could be using “baptism” in a figurative sense as in, “be immersed in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
• This idea of baptizing someone in the name of someone is curious indeed. I’ve searched and searched to find some precursor for this in Jewish culture to no avail. It’s possible he was referring to the Greco-Roman concept of “in the authority of”.

These are possible alternative interpretations of Mat 28, but none are enough for me—not with so much on the line and given the context Jesus imparting his final words to the Apostles. I do often wish God would have been clearer about salvation, but perhaps this is just a human need. It is humans who yearn for procedures and rituals that are objective and memorable.

The Best Non-Baptizer Verse

The verse that best describes the Gospel without any mention of baptism is John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is obviously a very popular verse, and for good reason: the context is correct (Nicodemus wants to know how to enter the Kingdom) and it’s Jesus talking. He says nothing about water baptism—just belief is required.

Jesus’ initial answer is figurative. First, he says you must be born again and then he says one must be born of water and Spirit. The baptizer concludes “water” refers to baptism while the non-baptizer thinks he’s talking about the amniotic birthwaters. But there is an explanation better than both:

• The Jews and Pharisees used water purification ceremonies (aka baptism) at seven key points in their lives: bar/bat mitzvah, marriage, recommitting to the Law, becoming a rabbi, becoming a teacher of rabbis, becoming king, and becoming the high priest. They also included one’s physical birth, where the baby is immersed in amniotic waters and emerges. This makes eight ways in all.
• They referred to each of these times as being “born again” since the individual was moving from one stage of life to the next. Therefore, being born again was not new to Nicodemus.
• Why then was Nicodemus so confused, saying in verse 4, “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” The key phrase is, “when he is old”. Nicodemus is speaking about himself primarily, and he has already been born again in all the ways possible to him (which was more than the typical Jew), so in his mind the only way he could be born again was to start all over again! Note how he doesn’t say “when he’s already born” or “when he’s already alive”. Aaron Budjen gives a great explanation of this here.

Therefore “born again” meant to transition from one stage of life to the next one. It did involve water purification and these purification rites involved the birth waters—therefore both the baptizers and non-baptizers have part of the interpretation but both are incomplete. Jesus is using “born again” in the life-transition sense. The water he refers to is likely all the earlier life-transition ceremonies, including birth, but he is not prophesying how water baptism will be necessary in the upcoming New Covenant. The baptizer could argue that just as all the other born-again experiences involved water purification, so Jesus is saying water baptism is bundled in the NC born-again experience. This is simply inconsistent with the context of the conversation, which is to distinguish the Jewish born-again experiences against the far superior spiritual born-again experience of the NC.

What is My Position?

I believe I have given good arguments and considerations for both positions. In this article I have shown the crux of the matter: that one’s disposition towards interpreting the Bible will greatly impact which side of the issue on which they land. Should what I personally believe matter to you or influence your position? Perhaps my position biased what I’ve written and perhaps knowing my position will bias how you read this.

Maybe I should just kick the can down the road like every Bible translator has done since at least the King James Version. How have they done this? They all chose to transliterate the word baptism instead of translating it. There are literally dozens of different Bible translations out there and (to myknowledge) every single one them since the King James translation was released in 1692 has chosen to continue to transliterate the Greek word βαπτίζω (bap-tih-dzoh) as “baptism”. Modern translations may argue that the word baptism has become a part of the English vernacular now, but really, why notjust translate it? Were it translated, it would mean “to immerse” and the next question would be, “immerse in what?”

Yet I would be remiss not to include my own position. My position is that the Believer’s Baptism is a necessary step in becoming a Christian, but with a couple of important caveats:

1. It is not easy to arrive at this conclusion when first-century context is applied. I therefore do not condemn those who have investigated the topic and come to the opposite conclusion.
2. I also believe God is more than capable of saving those who have not been baptized, but that the most correct and assured way to be immersed in the saving Spirit of God is to be immersed in water with the faith that Jesus died and was resurrected for them.
3. Although as humans we can never tell for sure if someone else is filled with the Spirit (or if we ourselves are), I have met many unbaptized people that seem filled and many baptized people who didn’t.
4. I wish it wasn’t this was and am totally open to being shown another way and will continue to investigate the issue.

I used to be much more dogmatic about this. In fact, there are many in my church who will undoubtedly frown upon my weak statement above. Know that I arrived at this conclusion after having done due diligence in the matter, considering all the baptism-related scriptures, and after reading many articles and books on the subject.  Is my position too weak? Remember, the Believer’s Baptism is about the faith of the individual as they’re baptized.  One cannot be baptized in order to “cover all the bases”. Yet I am not saying one should be baptized just in case it happens to be necessary; I am saying that the most assured and consistent way of reading the scriptures—all things considered—is that baptism in water with the belief that it is this process through which one receives the indwelling Spirit is necessary.

Baptizers who are reading this are probably thinking, “Darn right! I’m glad you finally got to the point!”; and non-baptizers are probably thinking, “What? After all this back-and-forth, how on earth did you reach this conclusion?” Simply put, a conclusion had to be reached—the subject would have been dropped centuries ago otherwise. While I did present many possibilities of how various baptism scriptures could be seen in ways not requiring water baptism, each has its own unique alternative interpretation and all of them must simultaneously go in favor of baptism being unnecessary for it to indeed be unnecessary. For instance, the Apostles could very well have been thinking about the Jewish conversion/recommitment ritual in Acts 2, and Jesus in John 3 may not have been referring to water baptism, but all other baptism verses, like Mat 28 and Rom 6, would have to also take on their alternate interpretations for baptism not to be required. At the same time, baptizers must know that there are alternative ways at looking at the baptism verses. They must also realize that baptism in water pales in comparison to the true goal: immersion in God’s saving Holy Spirit—it is only a prerequisite because God says it is.

I hope that you have enjoyed these five articles on baptism.  They have taken much longer and were more difficult to write than I ever anticipated, but in the end, I hope they are useful.