If one maintains that baptism is essential to
salvation, is he not therefore affirming that men are saved by something they
do themselves rather than by the grace of God?
This query fails to acknowledge the many aspects of God’s
salvation plan and twists complementary elements into a false antithesis,
overlooking the fact that man does have a part to play in his own
salvation. Otherwise, since God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4),
why will everyone not be saved? (cf. Matthew 7:13-23). The Bible
teaches that we are saved by God’s grace (Ephesians 2:5, 8), God’s mercy
(Titus 3:5), God’s longsuffering (2 Peter 3:15), God’s word
(James 1:21), Jesus (Matthew 1:21; 18:11), Jesus’ name (Acts
4:12), Jesus’ blood (Romans 5:9), Jesus’ life (Romans 5:10),
apostolic teaching (1 Corinthians 1:21; 9:22), the gospel (Romans 1:16;
1 Corinthians 15:1-2), faith (Luke 7:50; 18:42), confession of
faith (Romans 10:9), repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), obedience
(Hebrews 5:9), belief and baptism (Mark
16:16; 1 Peter 3:21), works [of God] (James 2:14, 24), ourselves [as we comply
with God’s directives] (Philippians 2:12; 1 Timothy 4:16), calling on
the Lord’s name (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13), endurance (Matthew 10:22),
and hope (Romans 8:24). Because all of these things work together,
it is a mistake to isolate just one of them and suggest that it somehow
excludes any of the others. Since the Bible says that baptism saves us (1
Peter 3:21), would it be reasonable to affirm that baptism must therefore
eliminate faith? If not, why do some contend that God’s grace eliminates
gospel obedience? When a person submits to baptism, he is simply doing
what the Lord has commanded him to do and is not negating the grace of God but
is rather appropriating it. The Corinthians received God's grace (2
Corinthians 6:1) when they received the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-2) and
submitted to its condition of baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 18:8).
Since the Bible says that all one must do to be saved is ‘call on the name
of the Lord’ (Romans 10:13), and since a person on his deathbed who can’t get
up to be baptized can still accept Jesus into his heart, how can anyone say
that baptism is essential to salvation?
Yes, the Bible does say that “calling on the Lord’s name” is
necessary for salvation, but that’s not all the Bible says. To reach the
conclusion implied in the above question one must do at least two things: (1)
disregard everything else the Bible has to say on this subject, and (2) ignore
how the Bible itself defines “calling on the name of the Lord.” However,
when all of the biblical information is taken into account, including the
context of Romans 10, the gospel requirements for salvation are clear. To
“call on the name of the Lord,” in the biblical sense, certainly includes a
verbal acknowledgement of one’s faith (Romans 10:9-10), but it is by no means
limited to this (cf. Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46; James 1:22; 2:17-26). The
scriptural pattern, as set forth in Romans 10, is as follows: the gospel is to
be (a) preached, (b) heard, and (c) believed, then one must (d) “call on
the name of the Lord” to be saved (vv. 12-17). Yet to exclude baptism from
this process is to disregard what Paul had just stated four chapters earlier in Romans 6, and is
to ignore how this same pattern is laid out in the book of Acts, and is to
overlook other relevant passages of scripture. Paul had just written that
baptism is necessary to have new life in Christ and freedom from sin (Romans
6:3-5, 17-18), and the book of Acts shows that in apostolic times when the
gospel was (a) preached, (b) heard, and (c) believed, (d) baptism immediately
followed (Acts 2:37-41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; et al.). As a matter of fact, baptism
is explicitly included in the summary act of “calling on the name of the
Lord” (Acts 2:21, 38; 22:16). If the Bible says that baptism is
necessary for the forgiveness of sins and consequent salvation (Acts 2:38;
22:16; Mark 16:15-16; 1 Peter 3:21), how can any professing
Bible-believer say that it is not necessary?
What about someone on his deathbed? Does this scenario cancel out what the
Bible says? If the person on his deathbed is in a coma and is therefore
incapable of developing faith in Jesus, does this mean, therefore, that faith
in Jesus in unnecessary? If not, why do some contend that this situation
somehow nullifies baptism or any other requirement of God? This person has
had his whole life to seek after God and to learn and obey the truth (Matthew
7:7; John 7:17). One’s waiting until the last moment or until it is too
late cannot be blamed on God (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:2) and it does not change the requirements that God
has set forth in his word. Do our fallible emotions and desires carry more weight than the infallible word of God? Even though some wish to argue that a
“deathbed conversion” is valid, this is an emotional (not a biblical) appeal and still does not alter or eliminate what is
necessary for the multitudes who are not on their deathbeds.
--Kevin
L. Moore
Related Posts: Thief on the Cross, Questions About Baptism (Part 2), Part 3, Part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment