As I continue to discuss the topic of water baptism in light of 1st century Jewish culture, this article will discuss why this is such an important subject and give a brief histor.
A few important words
Baptism can be a very emotionally charged subject. I have found that no matter what scriptures or arguments are presented, only a tiny percentage of people will ever change their position (either way) on this matter. Therefore it is not my purpose to change anyone’s perspective in this series or even to reveal my own standing, but to give information about both perspectives to allow people to be able to make informed decisions.
Another thing I’ve learned researching the subject is that is it not simple. If you think the answer is easy and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be ignorant, then I challenge you to try to open your mind and read this series.
Why is the topic of baptism important (or is it)?
Of the various Christian churches and denominations in the world, there are just a few that believe dogmatically (meaning strongly inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true) that a new convert must do the following in order to become a Christian: 1) Full immersion in water 2) Having the maturity to make such a decision and 3) Having the faith that it is this act of obedience which saves them through the death and resurrection of Christ. This is often now called the “believer’s baptism”. This is similar to the Medieval church where it was called the credo-baptism (“credo” means “I believe” in Latin). To be clear, churches that hold this position believe that those who have not been baptized in this manner are lost and going to Hell—no matter how “good” they are (e.g. goes to church, otherwise strong faith, tithes, etc.).
Note: For the sake of brevity, I’m going to call those who do believe baptism (as described above) is necessary for salvation “baptizers” and those who do not “non-baptizers”.
Therefore this is an important matter because if correct, most people who sincerely believe they are saved Christians are not and are instead still lost.
As I’ll examine in the next section, a very small percentage of Christendom holds to this belief, which by no means indicates the doctrine is false. As God is not running a democracy, the truth is the truth no matter how many believe it. Furthermore, it is consistent with how God has operated in the past:
• With a small select number (a remnant) of chosen people within a larger group. 1Kings 19:18 is a good example of this where God reserved 7000 in Israel who were faithful to him. The Jews themselves as God’s people chosen out of the whole world is another example.
• With an expectation to strictly follow laws and commands without second-guessing their purpose. For instance, see 2 Kings 5 where Naaman had to dip himself seven times in the Jordan—not any other count and not any other river. 1 Sam 15 is another example, where Saul is confident he followed God’s commands despite missing several.
Brief History of Baptism
The following is a brief but focused history of baptizer churches.
- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches: First century to the present. Although the church started as baptizers (this is debatable too), from the 3rd century until the present, these churches practiced infant baptism, which excludes them from the baptizer definition.
- Anabaptists: Starting in the early 1500s, the name means “baptized again”. They were named this by their persecutors because they rejected their baptism as infants and were re-baptized as adults. They were heavily persecuted and many were executed.
- Early Baptists: Starting in the late 1600s, the Baptists initially held a strong baptizer stance, but this waned over the centuries. By the start of the 20th century, nearly all Baptist congregations believed that baptism was not essential for salvation, but was merely an “outward sign of an inward grace”.
- United Pentecostal Church: Starting in America in 1904 as baptizers, this group of churches are still baptizer as far as I can tell from their website (www.upci.org).
- From the Restoration Movement: This American movement occurred from 1790 to 1840, and a church called the Disciples of Christ arose that had a strict baptizer doctrine. In the early 1900s, the church slowly separated into three churches, the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Churches of Christ. This separation was due in part to the doctrine of baptism, and it is only the Churches of Christ which has maintained a baptizer stance up until the present day.
There are also unaffiliated churches that may be baptizers, but these are the mainstream examples I could find.
As can be observed above, there can be a decreasing trend of dogmatism in a church over time. Even the Churches of Christ used to be more dogmatic, requiring individuals to be baptized in their church and calling anyone not having the believer’s baptism lost, but now prior believer’s baptisms are accepted and some congregations will say “It is possible that God could work other ways, but we believe the Bible teaches this.” I have observed the following phases of dogmatism, from the strictest form down:
1 One must be fully immersed in our church to be saved.
2 One must be baptized, but prior baptisms accepted.
3 One must be baptized, but God may still accept those in other churches who are not.
4 One must be baptized but one can be saved before their baptism through their faith.
5 One should be baptized, but it’s just a symbol for the church and expression of their faith.
Once a church reaches the last two phases, they no longer are in the “baptizer category”.
Defending One’s Position
Since the baptizer doctrine is relatively rare, it is likely that most people have not crossed paths with someone who adheres to it. If you have crossed paths with someone teaching this, then they probably tried to convince you their theology is true–a logically consistent thing for them to do since so much is at stake (at least in their minds).
Continuing with the idea that most people who call themselves Christians don’t know baptism is an issue, they typically don’t know how to defend their non-baptizer position. The opposite is true for baptizers: since it is such a major tenet of their belief system, baptizers can articulately defend their position, providing precise Biblical references. This gives them a distinct advantage when it comes to discussing the topic. Due to the emotionally-charged nature of being confronted by the baptizer theology, non-baptizers suddenly develop strong feelings that baptizers cannot be right. After all, if true, it means they’re not saved and neither are there loved ones.
It’s important to point out that the two sides are fundamentally asymmetric. The non-baptizer thinks he and the baptizer are both saved (despite the baptizer’s views) whereas the baptizer thinks he is but the non-baptizer is not. The baptizer is on the offensive trying to prove a positive, namely that the NT teaches one must be baptized to be saved. The non-baptizer is on the defensive trying to prove a negative, namely that the NT does not teach that physical immersion in water is required but that faith alone is enough. The asymmetry must be recognized and acknowledged for any conversation to be fruitful.
By definition non-baptizers don’t believe baptism is necessary, but I have found that many baptizers secretly wish that baptism wasn’t necessary. Why? I think it’s simply because it doesn’t make sense from a human perspective. It makes perfect sense from a Jewish cultural sense, but as my blog states, hardly anyone knows this. From a strictly modern human perspective, why would God require people to be immersed in water to be saved? How could it be that all these seemingly good Christians who don’t believe this way are lost? What if you’re on your way to be baptized and you die tragically in a car accident? What then? If baptism were necessary, wouldn’t God have made this more crystal clear in the Bible, leaving no doubt? I believe it is for these reasonable objections that it just doesn’t make sense to people that a loving God would require this. There are Scriptures too which talk about salvation but don’t mention baptism. Most popular are John 3:16, Rom 10:9-10, and Rev 3:20.
Although some baptizers may wish baptism weren’t necessary, their convictions make them not bothered by the human argument that immersion in water doesn’t make sense—God’s ways are above our ways and whatever God tells us to do we must do, regardless if it makes sense or not. Though for the baptizer, baptism does make sense. Not only are we commanded to do it by Jesus (Mat 28:18-20), Peter (2 Pet 3:20-22), and Paul (Col 2:11-12), but it is through baptism that the faithful participate in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:3-4). Regarding Scriptures that discuss salvation without mentioning baptism specifically, the baptizer will be quick to point out that it is logically inconsistent and erroneous to single out Scriptures but that the Bible must be harmoniously taken as a whole.
Stay tuned for the next article that will discuss the origins of baptism in Judaism and then in Christianity.