A Few Questions on Baptism

Blaine asks a good little set of questions around the topic of baptism; he asks about 1) an explanation of baptism as being a requirement for salvation and not merely a work, about 2) the thief on the cross and other cases of death-bed salvation and about 3) the thief on the cross' being an exception and thus nullifying baptism as actually being for salvation.

Let's actually start with #3 and go from there . . .

FIRST, all of the “laws” or “rules” stated in scripture are given in connection with the very character of God. Jesus really starts to bring this out when the Pharisees capitalize on “the Sabbath” and have actually come to use it (mechanically) AGAINST man (see Mk. 2:23-28); Jesus explicitly tells them that “the Sabbath” (a euphemism for “the whole law”) was given “for” – FOR! – “man” and that it wasn't the other way around (that is, it wasn't that man was given in order to “serve” the Sabbath). Jesus is saying this: the law was NEVER designed to be a tool of oppression; the law was ALWAYS given as an actual aid/benefit “for man.” (Do see Mk. 2:27.)

There are two different “types” of law . . . One is a “moral law” that is concurrent with God's very nature or character; in other words, certain things are innately or inherently “right” or “wrong” morally; for instance, it is inherently “right” to tell the truth; it is inherently “wrong” to lie. Another type is “positive law” – these are cases like, “Observe the Sabbath” or “Observe the Lord's Supper” or “Be baptized” – these aren't “inherently valuable” but only receive value because God arbitrarily commands such.

In the case of “positive law,” where God commands or “sets the rules” (if you wish), God's character is still the overarching or dominant factor. Jesus' episode with “the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:23-28) brings this out. If – IF! – at any time, “the law” gets used in violation of God's character and God's holy purpose for man – so, if “the law” gets turned into a tool of oppression of “man” in violation of God's character and purpose – then that misses the very mark and aim of such.

Let's move forward to “baptism” now . . .

Whatever God has said about baptism does not override God's character; whatever God has said about baptism isn't meant to oppress man; whatever God has said about baptism has been intended for man's actual good.

Now, let's move forward to another point that needs to be borne in mind . . .

When God gives “rules” or “laws” (positive laws), such ASSUMES A NORMAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. Here's what I mean . . .

Jesus brings out that certain VARIABLES change things . . . For instance, if one were to ask Jesus if one must observe/keep the Sabbath, He'd certainly say, “Yes” but that ASSUMES A NORMAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. (It was part of the Jewish Torah/Law; Jesus kept the Jewish Torah/Law – texts all over.) For instance, if a human being had a withered hand, Jesus didn't mind recognizing that as a variable and that an oppressive view of “Sabbath” should be rejected – He healed the man (cf. Mark 3:1-6); in another case, He healed a woman with an illness of 18 years on the Sabbath (cf. Lk. 13:10-17), and when criticized by a synagogue official, Jesus made a very logical argument on the point (Lk. 13:15) – again, the variable had changed; in another case, Jesus reminded that a sheep in the ditch could be lifted out on the Sabbath, and thus, so could a human life be bettered or saved (cf. Mat. 12:9-12). In each of these cases, Jesus is NOT “anti-Sabbath” but rather “pro-Sabbath” in the realest sense – He is recovering the real meaning of “Sabbath,” which was “deliverance” (cf. Deut. 5:15); the Sabbath always spake of God's saving/redeeming people – quite the opposite of His oppressing them! Jesus taught that VARIABLES must be accounted for, and in recognizing variables, Jesus didn't undercut the Sabbath but “fulfill” or recover it and all that it was intended to stand for.

So, let's go back to baptism again . . .

When we read texts that say that baptism provides entrance into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5), remits sin (Acts 2:38), washes sin away (Acts 22:16) or saves (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) or something else of the same sort, we're NOT TO FORGET THE CHARACTER OF GOD that stands behind such. For instance, there's no need for infants to be baptized since they're not morally accountable yet; additionally, there's no need for those who are mentally handicapped to be baptized. But, WHY? Why is that the case? Again, God's commands ASSUME A NORMAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES; so, even if there were “exceptions” to baptism (as with “the Sabbath” [see above]), that wouldn't necessarily speak against “baptism” – it'd be the “exception” that proves the rule.

Now, there'd be other cases where “baptism” wouldn't be required. A town nearby my hometown had a major investigation where they found “kids” who were raised in cages in a basement by horrible people; these “kids” were 40+ years old but hadn't developed at all – their minds and social skills were at the level of infants. Sad stuff. Anybody saying that they need to be “baptized” misses badly on the very character of God who gives commands in connection with an assumed normal set of circumstances. Maybe, we need to be a little more hesitant, too, on the question of “baptism” and third-world countries?

Look, here's something I'm sure of . . . I don't know everything, but I'm sure that I don't need to know everything. I'm glad God is omniscient, glad that He knows all of the variables, glad that He wants ALL to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:10), glad that He's loving in character (Exo. 34:6,7) and glad that He'll judge fairly, with equity, taking all of that into account (Psa. 9:8); the NT says that He'll “judge the world in line with His righteous character” (cf. Acts 17:30,31).

I don't mind preaching baptism – after all, it was God who told us to preach it – but preaching baptism hasn't made me forget the character of God either.

Now, let me say this: I'm not much on the word “exception” in this context, and here's why: “exception” MIGHT make us think that there's a way to sneak around “baptism” – it MIGHT make us think that baptism isn't all that important. We mustn't get that idea. What I'm saying is that baptism is ALWAYS to be taken in connection with God's character, which assumes a normal set of circumstances and that “baptism” was NEVER INTENDED by God in the “exceptional cases” anyway. The infants, mentally accountable and the like weren't “excepted” or “exempted” from “baptism – THEY WERE NEVER EMBRACED BY THE SCOPE OF “BAPTISM” IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I say all of that to say this . . . EVEN IF something strange were going on with “the thief on the cross,” it'd not undercut the NT's teaching on “baptism.” BUT, let's move into that part of the discussion now . . .

SECOND, what about that thief on the cross?

Here's how it goes: there were two thieves hanging alongside Jesus; the one, having antagonized Jesus, changes and asks Jesus to remember Him upon His entrance into His kingdom, to which Jesus says that the thief will be with Him in paradise. You can read it all in Luke 23:39-45.

Usually, we're told that the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and that he's a model for how we're to be or can be saved, too. I think this NEEDS TO BE HELD IN SERIOUS QUESTION.

Let's pursue this for a moment . . .

First, we need to ask a few questions . . . Was the thief married? . . . Did the thief own a camel? . . . What did the thief steal? . . . Hmm . . . Upon further consideration, we find out exactly how little we actually do know about the thief. NOW, was the thief baptized? Ah! Tough to say . . . But, it's at least an option . . . What if the thief had actually been baptized prior?! Now, there's a thought that the usual view NEVER suggests. But, there's more . . .

Second, what “ethnicity” was the thief on the cross? Was he Jewish or Gentile? Now, you might think: “Why'd that matter?!” It'd matter a good deal! Here's why: prior to Jesus' cross, ONLY John's baptism was operative, and Gentiles were actually NOT to be given baptism at this stage yet – Jesus Himself had told the disciples NOT to go to the Gentiles yet (cf. Mat. 10:5,6). At this stage, “baptism” was only to the Jews – the first Gentile converts into the body of Christ would not be made until at Cornelius' house years later, when God decided that the time was right (cf. Acts 1:8; 10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:14 – esp. 15:14). So, was the thief on the cross Jewish or Gentile? If the thief were a Gentile, not only would he not have been baptized, he couldn't/shouldn't have been! So, in order to suggest that the thief (at this stage, prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant – do see Hebrews 9:15-17!) needed to be baptized, we'd have to know that he was Jewish . . . and we know so little about him! In order to say that the thief didn't need to be baptized, we'd need to know his ethnicity . . . For what it's worth, Jews were “under” baptism of John (cf. Lk. 7:29,30); and, so, not only are we back to 1) not knowing about the thief's baptism status but 2) we're back to not knowing his ethnicity, which would be a “must” in order to say if he were even amenable to such a command. BUT, there's one more point . . .

Third, the thief on the cross died under the old system. It's interesting to me that the OT heroes of faith are never appealed to as “models” for “how” to be saved. I mean, when's the last time you heard a preacher telling you to build an ark like Noah or move from your homeland or offer your child like Abraham? No, it's always the simplistic model, taken from a misguided reading of “the thief on the cross.” What's my point? I'm saying that if someone were to tell me to “build an ark” or “offer my child,” I'd object and say that Noah and/or Abraham were under different systems than I am and that (on this side of Jesus' cross) I'm under a different covenant . . . We need to ask ourselves about “the thief” and the covenant he was under – wasn't he under the Old Covenant, a different system than we're under, prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant?! See Hebrews 8:6-8,13! The Old Covenant (of Moses) was the era prior to the cross of Jesus; now, we're under a New Covenant (see Hebrews 9:15-17). So, here's a point: the thief wasn't even under the New Covenant but died under the Old Covenant, so, to read “baptism” (as a requirement) back onto him is a mistake as equally much as it would be to 1) read it (as a requirement) back onto Abraham or Moses or David and as much as it would be to 2) read the thief forward into the New Covenant as if he's a model for us, as if baptism isn't a requirement in the New Covenant.

So, is “the thief on the cross” an “exception” and a proof that baptism isn't actually for salvation? And, is it possible for people to be saved without baptism on a death-bed? I'd appeal to what I've said above . . . I'm content to let God be God; I'm content to preach baptism, as He has instructed; I'm happy not to be the judge and let God made the call on who is “in” and who is “out.” BUT, let's move on to the last part of the question . . .

THIRD, so, is baptism a requirement for salvation or merely a good work?

Look, “baptism” assumes a normal set of circumstances, and in those normal cases, baptism is explicitly said to “save” (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21), “wash away” past sins (Acts 22:16), place one into the kingdom (Jn. 3:5), put one “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 12:13) and put the old man to death to cause an arising to new life (Rom. 6:1-7). The NT is clear enough: “baptism” is a requirement for salvation on morally responsible people in assumed normal circumstances.

In fact, when looking at texts like Ephesians 1:3 (or 2 Timothy 2:1,10), we start to find out that we need to be “in” Christ in order to have salvation, spiritual blessings, access to grace, etc. That raises the important question of, “How do I get 'into Christ'?” Do give Romans 6:1-7, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27 a read and see how the NT states it. It surely looks as though baptism, a work of faith, is the point at which that happens.

Now, there's no dispute about baptism's being a “work,” a good work, a great work, a “work of faith” – – in fact, just like “faith” itself, it is a “work of God” (see Colossians 2:11-13). Now, the NT NEVER knocks good works of faith, but it does knock works of merit or binding works of the Jewish Torah on Gentiles, who weren't under/amenable to that covenant, but the NT DOES “tip its' hat” to “works/deeds/acts of faith” (cf. Jn. 6:29; Col. 2:11-13; James 2:14-26, esp.).

So, just to be clear . . . Just about all of the evangelical types agree that baptism is a “good work,” but the dispute is about whether or not its' “for salvation” or a requirement to be saved . . . Look, give the above texts a read and see if you can walk away with anything but an understanding of “Baptism saves, washes away sins and puts me into Christ were salvation, spiritual blessings and grace can be found.” And, you might read texts like Romans 6:7 or Galatians 3:27 invertedly and think on them: “he who hasn't died (through baptism) hasn't been freed from sin” or “As many of you as haven't been baptized into Christ haven't put on (come into union with) Christ.” Hmm . . .

Here's what I've argued here . . .

FIRST, all of God's commands fall in-line with His character; when God gives commands, like “be baptized,” it assumes 1) God's character as the foundation and 2) assumes a normal set of circumstances, not accounting for possible variables.

SECOND, the thief on the cross isn't an “exception” that proves that baptism isn't a requirement; instead, there are several considerations that suggest the thief isn't a model for us (today, on this side of the cross, under the New Covenant) on how to be saved. Instead, maybe, we'd do well to look at the individuals in Acts 2 or at Paul's conversion (Acts 9; Acts 22), which ARE under the New Covenant and are cases on the same side of the cross for how people are to be saved. (Read Acts – even F.F. Bruce, NOT a member of the churches of Christ, admitted: “There is no such thing as an unbaptized believer in the book of Acts.”)

THIRD, I've argued that baptism is the act that saves one from past sins, puts one into Christ and is thus more than “just a good work.” It's not merely a good deed like praying, giving, suppering, etc. – it is THE act that places one into contact or union with Jesus – that's how the NT presents it.

Now, who came up with the idea of baptism? God. What does it say? It's the believer's declaration to have a new Lord; it's the believer's oath of loyalty to a new Master. And, what's our hangup with it? Tough to say . . . But, even Jesus was baptized; don't we want to be like Jesus? Maybe, we should let the NT have its' say? Maybe, we should submit to it? Maybe, we should follow Jesus into the water and find ourselves submitting to God, coming into union with Him by the death and the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:1-7; 1 Pet. 3:21)?