UNION GROVE CHURCH OF CHRIST, CLEVELAND TN.

By way of brief summary, in our last two bulletin articles we have looked at one anonymous person’s arguments to support the position that "baptism is in no wise essential to salvation." The five arguments that we noted and refuted were these: (1) People were saved during the O.T. era without baptism, (2) Quakers and Salvation Army people are saved, but many of them are not baptized, (3) The thief on the cross was saved without baptism, (4) Salvation is by faith alone and not by works, and (5) Jesus never baptized anyone. Please consider two final arguments that were presented to me.

"If baptism be essential to salvation, it is passing strange that the apostle Paul, when asked point blank by the Philippian jailer, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ answered by saying, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’"

Roger’s A: Many reason that since baptism is not mentioned in Paul’s recorded answer in Acts 16:31, then baptism is not essential to salvation. Is this conclusion justified? Let’s take that same reasoning and apply it to the word "repent." The argument would go like this: since Paul’s recorded, direct answer to the question "What must I do to be saved" does not include the word "repent," then repentance is not essential to salvation. It’s the same argument, I just put in "repent" in place of "baptism." It is a false conclusion that says since "repent" is not found in Acts 16:31, then it is not essential. We know that repentance is required, and such passages as Acts 2:38 and Acts 17:30 show this to be the case. In the same way, an appeal to other passages on salvation show that baptism is also required – two such passages about baptism are found in the Book of Acts, too (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Speaking of "passing strange," I find it passing strange that the jailer would be baptized "straightway" (immediately) at such a late hour of the night (after midnight, Acts 16:25,32,33) if such action were not required. It is a matter of record that denominations which teach that a person is saved before and without baptism do not baptize people "immediately" at such late hours. Rather, in most cases they wait until there is a group of people that express a desire to be baptized, then they are all baptized at one time. Such a practice is certainly far different from the practice of the early disciples to baptize people without delay (Acts 2:41; 8:35-38; 16:14,15; 16:30-34; 22:16).

"Finally, if baptism be essential to salvation, it is passing strange the apostle Paul should have written to the Corinthians, ‘I thank God I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius’ (1 Corinthians 1:14)."

Roger’s A: The context of this statement makes Paul’s meaning clear. The saints at Corinth had not been baptized in the name of Paul, neither had he been crucified for them (1:14). Thus, he did not want them saying that they were "of Paul." Yet, that is the very thing that some of them were doing (1:12). The church in Corinth was plagued with serious division (1:10), division that came about because of the desire of some to call themselves after a preacher. Paul wanted nothing to do with supporting such a spirit. For that reason he stated that he was thankful to God that he had baptized only those two, lest he "add fuel to the fire" of their division.

Here’s a question to consider: when Paul did baptize Crispus and Gaius, did he do wrong? That is, did Paul sin when he baptized them? Of course not, because he baptized by the authority of Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16).

Also, it was not important who actually did the baptizing. Paul could do it, but so could those brethren that traveled with and assisted him, such as Timothy or Silas. Paul’s mission was to preach the unsearchable riches of the Christ (Ephesians 3:8). Whether it was Paul or someone else that did the actual baptizing had no bearing on the salvation of the one being baptized or the "acceptableness" of his baptism.

The preceding paragraph was the last part of my original response to the baptism-is-not-necessary-for-salvation-writer. How would he react to what I wrote to him? Would he now accept the truth, or would he hang on to his former belief that one receives the remission of sins before and without baptism? After the passing of a couple of weeks I received an answer from my I-will-not-tell-you-my-name-correspondent. Below is his exact message in its entirety (all spelling and punctuation is his):

"After due consideration I have concluded that you pervert the Gospel of God’s grace and therefore If Almighty God dosnt open your eyes and open your heart and do a operation on your evil wicked heart, Then you7ll just have to die and go to hell for salvation is grace alone by faith alone plus nothing minus nothin. If I were you id ask myself will Almighty Gods Holy Spirit ever open my eyes and unstop my ears so i can hear the Gospel or will He let me go on in my religious forms and let me die satisfied on my road to hell. The religious people were so religious and cauht up in forms and outward rituals they missed the Christ of God the Lamb of God and if your trusting anything other than Gods shed blood on the cross you aare sure to die in your sin. Salvation is of the Lord. May Almighty God open your heart so that you czn receive the truth and if He dont yull just have to die and go to hell."

Roger’s A: Thanks for looking over what I had do say. I know that I do not want to miss heaven, and I don’t want you to, either.

I would like to make four brief observations concerning your response. First, your message is very understandable, but it is more than a little disappointing that you did not mention one passage of scripture or make reference to any of the arguments that I presented from the Bible.

Second, if, as you suggest, I possess an evil, wicked heart, and Almighty God does not step in and "do an operation" to open my eyes and heart, then would He not be to blame for me having to go to hell? If God steps in to directly open one person’s heart so he can be saved, but does not do the same for every other person, then He would be a respecter of persons. But, the Bible says that He is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34,35). Therefore, it is not the case that God will step in to directly do an operation to open any person’s heart.

Third, you stated, "salvation is grace alone by faith alone plus nothing minus nothing." Roger’s A: The word "alone" means "excluding anyone or anything else; with nothing further; sole; only; unaccompanied by others" [Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1997]. Thus, if salvation is by "grace alone," that means it is by grace "with nothing further" – that would mean salvation by grace without faith! And, if salvation is by "faith alone," that means it is by faith "with nothing further" – that would mean salvation by faith without grace! It is impossible for salvation to be both by "grace alone" and "faith alone." Why? Because "alone" by definition "excludes anything else." The truth is, salvation is neither by "grace alone," nor is it by "faith alone." God wants all men to repent, yea, He commands them to, and those who refuse to do so will not be saved (2 Peter 3:9; Acts 17:30). Since repentance is a condition of salvation, then it cannot be true that salvation is by either "grace alone" or "faith alone."

 Send mail to ppitts@ugcoc.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2005 Union Grove church of Christ
Last modified: September 27, 2008