Kevin Stone

Introduction

Over the years one of the most discussed aspects of YOUR CHURCH’s beliefs is the role of baptism in the process of becoming a Christian. To help give you a better understanding of our position we have provided an adapted chapter from Dr. Jack Cottrell’s book The Faith Once For All for people in our congregation. This chapter does an excellent job of succinctly expressing what the Bible teaches regarding this important subject in an in-depth and technical manner. While we always stress that scripture alone dictates what we believe and practice, it sometimes helps having a knowledgeable teacher come alongside us and guide us. Our hope is that as you read Dr. Cottrell’s words, you will find answers to your questions and be encouraged by his counsel.

A comprehensive explanation of baptism must answer three main questions. First, what is the purpose of baptism? Second, who should be baptized? And third, how should baptism be performed? These are the questions of the meaning, the subjects, and the mode of baptism. This chapter will attempt to answer them in this order.

The Meaning of Baptism

Most important is the meaning of baptism, since the answer to this question helps us to determine the answers to the other two. It is important also because it has been a source of serious controversy ever since the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The heart of the issue is whether baptism has a crucial role in the reception of salvation. More specifically, is baptism something a sinner does in order to receive salvation and become a Christian, or is it simply a good work (an act of obedience) done for some other purpose by someone who is already a Christian?

The Bible is very clear about this. In every NT passage that says anything at all about the meaning of baptism, the only purpose with which it is connected is the salvation of sinners. The various aspects of salvation are described as being bestowed upon the believing, repentant sinner in the act of baptism. This is the consistent and exclusive NT witness; no other purpose for baptism is mentioned or even hinted at. This is why we may speak of baptism (along with faith, repentance and confession) as a condition for salvation. 

Baptism and the Double Cure

God’s work of salvation through Jesus Christ may be summarized as having a “double cure.” Sin creates two problems for the sinner, both of which are addressed by God’s saving grace. First, sin brings the legal problem of guilt, resulting in the sinner’s liability to the penalty of eternity in hell. Also, sin makes a person sinful. That is, it affects the person’s very nature; it makes him depraved or spiritually sick. This corrupts the sinner’s inner being, sapping his spiritual strength and trapping him in the grip of sin.

God’s gracious salvation addresses both sides of this predicament. On the one hand, God’s solution to guilt is justification, also called the forgiveness or remission of sins. This is accomplished only by the redeeming blood of Christ by which he paid the penalty deserved by those who have broken God’s divine law. When the blood of Christ is applied to the penitent sinner, his guilt and condemnation are washed completely away. On the other hand, God’s cure for the sinner’s depraved nature is the gift of the Holy Spirit, whose life-giving presence renews and regenerates the sin-sick heart and breaks the death-grip of sin upon the soul. Biblical terms for this work of the Holy Spirit include new birth, new creation, being made alive, resurrection, regeneration, renewal, and circumcision without hands. Following this initial act of spiritual resurrection, the Holy Spirit dwells within the saved person as a source of spiritual strength and continuing sanctification.

In summary, in the double cure of salvation God takes away the sinner’s guilt through the blood of Christ and renews his heart through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. Only divine power can accomplish these things. The question being addressed here, though, is when does God choose to work these powerful works in the heart of the sinner?

Almost everyone would agree that the Bible relates salvation to baptism in some sense. All would acknowledge, for example, that baptism and salvation are connected at least symbolically. That is, the act of baptism is a physical symbol of the reality of spiritual salvation. It is “an outward sign of an inward grace;” the application of water to the body depicts the cleansing of the soul.

Some would go further and discern a psychological connection between baptism and salvation. They see the act of baptism as affecting the mental state of the person being baptized, as confirming or sealing upon his heart a deeper assurance of the salvation that God has already bestowed upon him. The baptized person can say to himself, “Just as surely as I am experiencing the baptismal water upon my body, I can be sure that God has applied his grace to my soul.”

Some have gone to the extreme of affirming a causal connection between baptism and salvation. They have attributed to the baptismal water or to the baptismal act the power to cleanse the soul from sin, or at least the power to convey that divine cleansing to the soul. Thus anyone who submits to the physical act of baptism will surely be saved, even in the absence of a proper knowledge of Christ and a positive faith in him. This is the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration,” and is usually held in connection with certain forms of infant baptism.

How shall we evaluate these views in the light of Scripture? Actually, none of them adequately expresses the NT teaching about the relation between baptism and salvation. The causal view described in the previous paragraph must be rejected altogether. There is no basis for ascribing any saving power to the baptismal water or to the act of baptism itself. God’s power and God’s action alone can save; the sinner is saved when God applies the blood of Christ to his heart and gives him the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the symbolical and psychological views must be rejected, not because they are off the mark but because in themselves they do not go far enough. That is they do not give us the whole picture of the relation between baptism and salvation. It is true that water baptism symbolizes the reality of inward salvation, and that it strengthens faith in Christ and increases assurance of salvation. The problem is that those who emphasize these points often limit the meaning of baptism to these effects alone while denying that baptism is also the specific time when God bestows his gifts of salvation. They claim that as a rule a person is already saved before his is baptized. Baptism is a subsequent outward sign of a previously given inward grace, they say; thus it only strengthens one’s faith in a salvation already possessed. Such a limited view, however, is much too weak. It does not do justice to the NT teaching about what really happens during baptism.

In summary, we reject any causal relation between baptism and salvation. Also, we agree that baptism is symbolically and psychologically related to salvation, even though this is never actually stated in Scripture and is only inferred from what is taught therein. Most important, we affirm that the clear and specific teaching of the NT is that baptism is the time during which God graciously bestows upon the sinner the double cure of salvation. As such it is a divinely appointed condition for salvation during this New Covenant era.

Our purpose now is to set for the biblical evidence for this temporal relation between baptism and salvation. First, we will look at the passages which connect both aspects of the double cure with baptism, beginning with Acts 2:38; “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” This is Peter’s response to an audience of Jews whose rejection of their Messiah had put them into a lost state and who thus needed salvation. Their question to Peter (v. 37) was, “What shall we do?” That is, what shall we do to be saved? Peter names two things they must do: repent and be baptized. He also names two things they would receive as a result: forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit – the double cure.

This verse specifically says that baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins.” Forgiveness (or remission) is equivalent to justification; it is the cancellation of all guilt by the power of the blood of Christ. This is the first part of the double cure. A key word in this statement is the word “for,” which translates the Greek preposition eis. Physically this term represents motion toward something; conceptually it signifies purpose or intention or result. In other words, Peter says to be baptized for the purpose of bringing about the forgiveness of sins. It is used in exactly the same way in Matthew 26:28, where Jesus spoke of his blood as being “poured out for many for [eis] forgiveness of sins,” i.e., for the purpose of bringing about the forgiveness of sins. Early editions of the NIV translated the sense of Acts 2:38 quite accurately: “Repent and be baptized…so that your sins may be forgiven.”

This verse also says that those who are baptized “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This refers to the indwelling presence of the Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 7:37-39; the specific immediate result of this indwelling is the new birth promised in John 3:3-5. The Spirit’s presence raises the spiritually dead sinner to a state of spiritual life, which is the second aspect of the double cure. This gift of the indwelling Spirit is specifically stated to be a consequence or result of baptism.

Thus Acts 2:38 makes the meaning of baptism clear. It is the time God has appointed for removing the sinner’s guilt and for bestowing upon him the regenerating presence of the Holy Spirit.

Another passage that expressly states that baptism is the time when God works the double cure is Colossians 2:12. It speaks of being “buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Here two things are said to happen in baptism. First, we are “buried with Him,” i.e., with Christ. According to Romans 6:3-4 this means we are buried into the death of Christ. To be buried with Christ into his death means to receive all the saving benefits of his atoning death; it means to come into contact with his justifying blood and thus to receive the forgiveness of sins.

The second thing that happens in baptism is that we are “raised up with Him.” This refers to the initial act of the indwelling Holy Spirit. As soon as God gives us his Spirit (as promised in Acts 2:38), the Spirit infuses new life into our dead souls. Our spirits are raised from the dead by the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus’ body from the tomb (Romans 8:10-11; see Colossians 2:13).

Colossians 2:12 is important because it clearly and expressly says that these things happen “in baptism.” This does not mean before baptism, nor does it mean after baptism. It means exactly what it says: in baptism, in the act of baptism, at the time of baptism. We could not ask God to be more specific than this. In baptism God works the twofold work of salvation upon our hearts. This same relation between baptism and salvation is specified in Romans 6:3-5. In the baptismal act we are united with the death and resurrection of Christ, the result being justification and regeneration (see Cottrell, Romans, I:383-390).

Other NT passages relate baptism to the two aspects of the double cure individually. For example, Acts 22:16 connects it with the washing away of sins, which is equivalent to forgiveness. Thus when Ananias said to Saul, “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name,” he was saying exactly what Peter said in Acts 2:38: “Be baptized, for the purpose of bringing about the forgiveness of your sins.” The fact that baptism is the time of salvation is seen in the addition of the phrase, “calling on His name.” According to Joel 2:32 and Acts 2:21, the purpose of calling His name is to be saved.

Passages which individually related baptism to the second part of the double cure are John 3:5 and Titus 3:5. In John 3:5 Jesus says,” Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This is a reference to being “born again” (John 3:3), which is the same as the spiritual resurrection that Colossians 2:12 says takes place in baptism. That this new birth is somehow the result of both water and the Spirit brings to mind Acts 2:38, which connects water baptism with the gift of the Spirit. For this and other reasons we may rightly conclude that Jesus’ reference to water in John 3:5 speaks of baptism and makes it a condition for being born again.

Titus 3:5 in a similar way refers to baptism (“the washing”) as the time when the Holy Spirit regenerates and renews us. It says that God “saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewing,” which are accomplished in that moment “by the Holy Spirit.”

The passages discussed above clearly set forth the meaning of baptism as the time when God bestows salvation’s double cure. Other NT passages related baptism to salvation in the same way, only in more general terms. For example, Matthew 28:18-20 says we are baptized into union with the Trinity; Galatians 3:27 says we are baptized into union with Christ; and 1 Corinthians 12:13 says we are baptized into the body of Christ. Two other verses state simply that the result of baptism is salvation: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16); and, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

Why Baptism Now Saves

Many do not understand why God would add a new condition for salvation not required in OT times. If faith in God’s gracious promises and a repentant heart were sufficient for salvation then, why not now? In reply we can identify at least two good reasons why God has connected salvation with baptism.

First, this new condition has been added because the salvation process under the New Covenant includes new elements not present under the Old Covenant. Baptism brings these new elements into focus and assures that the sinner is coming to God in full cognizance of them and not in terms of a framework that is obsolete and no longer adequate.

What are these new elements that raise New Covenant salvation to a higher level? First, there is a more complete revelation of the nature of God and thus an advanced understanding of the very object of our faith. We now know unequivocally that God’s nature is triune, i.e., that the Lord God of the OT is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism was established to ensure that this new understanding of God would not be lost. This is why Jesus commanded that baptism be “in the name of the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

Another new element in New Covenant salvation is the historical reality and the living presence of the Redeemer himself, Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son gives concrete reality to the doctrine of the Trinity. His death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead – prophesied in the OT but for all practical purposes unknown in that era – are the literal source of our salvation. Baptism was established to ensure that we would never separate our salvation from the divine Redeemer Jesus nor from his saving death and resurrection. Thus baptism is not just in the name of “the Son” (Matthew 28:19) but “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), who we must never forget is God the Son. Also, baptism is intended to draw our attention unmistakably to his death and resurrection as the works that bring us salvation (Romans 6:3-11; Colossians 2:12).

Still another new element is the specific saving work of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. In OT times the Spirit worked to empower some of God’s people for roles of service, but he did not enter a sinner’s heart to work salvation therein. The latter was something God reserved for his New Covenant saints, as promised by Jesus (John 7:37-39) and as begun on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39). Baptism was established as the time when the penitent sinner receives this gift of the Spirit, thus highlighting the newness and uniqueness of this blessing for this Messianic age.

All of these new elements in the New Covenant salvation process necessarily lead to one more, namely, a newness of the very faith that is required for salvation. Though not different in form, the faith that is necessary for salvation in this age is very different in content from that of the Old Covenant. A general faith in the general promises of the God of Israel no longer qualifies a person to receive salvation. When confronted with the new revelation of God as Trinity and especially with the identification of Jesus as the divine Savior, even Jews who once enjoyed a saving relationship with the God of Israel had to adjust their faith accordingly or be lost (Romans 11:17-23). To accept baptism as the concrete embodiment of all this new faith-content is a humble confession that one does indeed believe these things; thus Christian baptism is inseparably linked with Christian faith.

This is one reason why “baptism now saves,” namely, because the newness of salvation in this age requires a new and distinguishing element in the process of receiving it.

The second reason why God has connected salvation with baptism in the NT age has to do with our need for a personal assurance that God has indeed saved us. Sometimes it is easy to be plagued by doubts and uncertainties as to whether we have truly met the God of our salvation and have truly received his gifts of saving grace. We know what God has promised, but has it really happened to us?

As a concession to our human frailty in this respect, God has tied his promises to baptism as a concrete, objective event that will always stand out in our memories. It is an unforgettable reference point to which we an always return when we begin to doubt that we have received God’s grace. It is the “stake” that God himself has provided for our comfort and assurance. We do not have to torture ourselves, wondering at what point our faith was strong enough or our repentance sincere enough to be saved. The sufficiency for our salvation lies in the power of God and the truth of his promises. He has promised to save us in baptism. Just as surely as we can remember our baptism, so can we be sure that God has kept his promises to us.

This is the sense in which there is a psychological connection between baptism and salvation. Knowing that we have been baptized has a definite affect on our state of mind, in the sense that it under girds our assurance of salvation. This psychological effect is possible, though, only because baptism is in itself the time when salvation is given. 

The Subjects of Baptism

Who should be baptized? Everyone agrees that adults and young people who have reached the age of accountability are proper subjects for baptism. The main issue here is whether infants and young children ought to be baptized.

Today many denominations practice infant baptism. Some, such as Roman Catholics and Lutherans, baptize babies for salvation. They do this because they believe that babies in a sense “inherit” the double trouble of guilt and sinfulness from Adam and Eve, and because they rightly understand the NT’s teaching that baptism is the time when God gives sinners the double cure of forgiveness and new birth. Thus infants are baptized so that they may be saved.

Others, such as Presbyterians and Methodists, baptize babies because they believe that the children of Christian parents are automatically members of the covenant community (the church), and because they equate baptism with OT circumcision and take it to be an outward sign that such infants do indeed belong to the church. They assume a continuity of the covenants and thus of the covenant people and the covenant signs. Since babies were members of the covenant people by physical birth under the first covenant, so are they today. And since the sign of membership, i.e., circumcision, was applied to (male) babies then, so should baptism be applied to babies today as the sign of their membership in the church.

There are several good and decisive reasons, however, why infants should not be baptized. First and foremost, the very meaning of baptism rules out infants as proper subject of baptism. Baptism is indeed for salvation; therefore it is meaningful and necessary only for those who are lost sinners. Babies, however, are not in this category. They should not be regarded as sinners in need of salvation. Whatever sin and condemnation all children may have potentially inherited from Adam has already been nullified and canceled for every member of the human race by the atoning work and original grace of Christ (Romans 5:12-19). As a result only when children become old enough to understand the meaning of God’s law and the significance of breaking that law are they considered accountable for it and thus in need of baptism (Romans 4:15; 7:7-11).

Another reason why infants should not be baptized is that Christians are under a New Covenant, which does not imitate the conditions for membership which existed under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant, even the provisions that began as far back as Abraham, was completely fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus (cf. Acts 13:32-33). Jeremiah 31:31-34 prophesies the coming of a new and different covenant, and Jesus declared that this New Covenant was established with his own blood (Luke 22:20). Therefore it could not have been in existence prior to his death (Hebrews 9:17).

One of the main differences between the covenants is the basis or means of membership. A baby born to Jewish parents was a member of the Old Covenant community simply by means of physical birth. As the child grew, he had to be taught to know the Lord, even though he was already under the covenant. But it is quite different today. One becomes a member of the New Covenant community not by physical birth but by the new birth or spiritual birth, which is possible only for those who are old enough to make a conscious decision for God and “believe in His name” (John 1:12-13). We are children of God “through faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). For this reason a distinctive characteristic of the New Covenant is that those who are under it do not have to be taught again to know the Lord, “’for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:34).

Male children born under the Old Covenant indeed were circumcised as infants, but this has no parallel whatsoever under the New Covenant and is not in any sense a pattern for the practice of baptism today. Nowhere in the NT is baptism described or depicted as a sign of belonging to the church. The only connection the NT makes between circumcision and baptism is in Colossians 2:11-12, and the relationship given there is not substantive by figurative. That is, the physical removal of a bit of skin by human hands is a figure or a type of the spiritual removal of the old sinful nature “without hands,” which is equivalent to the regeneration or spiritual resurrection that takes place during baptism. Imposing the meaning and use of circumcision upon Christian baptism is completely without biblical warrant, and it leads ultimately to a denial of everything the NT does teach about the meaning and subjects of baptism.

A third reason why infants should not be baptized is that there is absolutely no mention of infant baptism anywhere in the NT. Some maintain that infants must been baptized because the NT refers several times to the baptism of households (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16), and it is assumed that such households would have included infants. This is only an inference, however, and an unwarranted one at that. Such references most likely include only those old enough to make a conscious response to the gospel. This seems obvious from the fact that the members of these households are also said to have feared God (Acts 10:2), heard (Acts 10:44; 16:32), believed (Acts 16:34; 18:8), and rejoiced (Acts 16:3). Thus the NT’s silence concerning infant baptism remains complete.

A final reason why infants should not be baptized is that in the NT baptism is preceded by other actions which by their very nature can be performed only those old enough to have a conscious understanding of what is taking place. Before being baptized a person should be able to hear the gospel (Acts 18:8), believe its promises (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14, 31, 34; 18:8, Colossians 2:12), repent of his sins (Acts 2:38), and call upon the Lord (Acts 22:16). Since infants cannot do such things, baptism has no relevance for them.

Because of these reasons we must conclude that infants need not be baptized, nor should they be baptized, indeed they cannot be baptized. They can of course be dipped in water, but such a dipping would have no spiritual significance. Infants cannot be baptized any more than they can vote or get married. It is simply not something that applies to them. Baptism applies only to adults and to young people who are old enough to know what they are doing.

The Mode of Baptism

The last main question in reference to baptism is its mode: how is it applied to the penitent, believing sinner? The specific issue here is whether immersion in water is the only valid way to baptize. While accepting immersion as true baptism, many in Christendom believe it is proper to apply the baptismal water in other ways also, especially by daubing it or sprinkling it or pouring a small amount of it on the head. Others believe that immersion is the only valid form of baptism. The latter view is the one presented and defended here.

We may state unequivocally that, in its physical form, baptism is by definition the momentary immersion of the body into a pool of water. Nothing else really counts as baptism. To say that one can baptize in some way other than immersion is like saying one can drink from the cup of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:27) in some way other than swallowing, e.g., by pouring the juice out on the floor, or rubbing a bit of it on one’s forehead. Such actions as sprinkling and pouring have no more relation to baptizing than these actions do to drinking.

In defense of this view we may cite the two main arguments Martin Luther used for it when he said, “I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates” (“Captivity,” 191). That is, the Greek word for baptism means immersion, and the symbolism of the act requires it.

First, the word ”baptize” in the Greek language literally means “to dip, to immerse.” As Luther says, the act of baptism “is that immersion in water from which it derives its name, for the Greek baptizo means ‘I immerse,’ and baptisma means, ‘immersion’” (ibid., 186). In explaining the meaning of these words, Greek lexicons consistently use such terms as “dip,” “plunge,” “immerse,” “submerge,” “sink,” “go under,” and “drown.” When the emphasis is on the result of the action rather than the action itself, other terms may be used, e.g., “dye,” “drench,” “soak,” and “overwhelm.” In any case the only action inherent in baptism is immersion.

Second, the symbolism of baptism requires immersion. Earlier we pointed out that some people see only a symbolic relation between baptism and salvation. While this is completely inadequate as the sole meaning of baptism, it is certainly true as far as it goes. The action of immersion in water is by design intended to symbolize the saving events of death, burial, and resurrection, as Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:12 clearly show. This is true in two ways. On the one hand, immersion symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; on the other hand, it symbolizes the sinner’s own spiritual death, burial, and resurrection that are taking place simultaneously with the act of baptism itself.

Romans 6:4 says that “we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Colossians 2:12 says we were “buried with Him in baptism,’ in which we were also “raised up with Him.” Can anyone honestly say that sprinkling or pouring a small amount of water on a person in any way even comes close to the events that are supposed to be symbolized in baptism? This is why Luther says that nothing except immersion can “bring out the full significance of baptism,” because it is a “symbol of death and resurrection” (ibid., 191).

Thus we conclude that the literal meaning of the word and the figurative significance of the act both require that baptism always be done by immersion.

Concluding Questions

The preceding discussion has raised several questions that must be briefly addressed. First, if the Bible truly teaches that baptism is the point of time when God bestows the double cure of salvation, why is this view not more widely held in Christendom? Most Protestants, with Lutherans being a major exception, acknowledge only a symbolic and perhaps a psychological connection between baptism and salvation; they deny that baptism is any way a condition for salvation. How did the latter view – baptism is a condition for salvation – arise?

A study of the history of this aspect of baptism is very enlightening. The fact is that baptism was viewed as the time when God bestows the double cure of salvation from the beginning of Christian history, and this remained the practically unanimous consensus for nearly 1,500 years – up to and including Martin Luther (see Cottrell, “Consensus,” 17-38). For example, in the mid-second century Justin Martyr said that “we have learned from the apostles this reason” for baptism, i.e., “in order that we…may obtain in the water the remission of sins.” Quoting John 3:5 he said that converts “are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated” (Justin Martyr, “Apology,” ANFI:183). Augustine (d. A.D. 430) declared that “the salvation of man is effected in baptism” (Letters,” III:5, p. 301). Except for martyrs, he said, the apostolic tradition taught “that without baptism…it is impossible for any man to attain to salvation and everlasting life” (Merits,” I:34, p. 35).

Martin Luther’s teaching on this subject was most forceful (see Cottrell, “Consensus,” 31-34). He declared that “both the forgiveness and the driving out of sins [double cure] are the work of baptism” (Sacrament,” 15, p. 38). “What Baptism promises and brings,” he said, is “victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts” (“Large Catechism,” IV:41-42, pp. 441-442). “To put it most simply, the effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save” (ibid., IV:23-24, p. 439). One is baptized so that he “may receive in the water the promised salvation” (ibid., IV: 36, p. 441).

This consensus view of the meaning of baptism reigned for 1,500 years, until it was challenged and changed by one man, a contemporary of Luther, the Swiss reformer Huldreich Zwingli. “In this matter of baptism,” he decided,” all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles” (Zwingli, 130). And so in the years 1523 to 1525 he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism hitherto unknown. In essence he transferred the exact meaning of OT circumcision to baptism, and explained it as a covenant sign, i.e., as a public testimony and witness that the recipient of baptism is (already) saved and is a member of God’s covenant people. This newly minted understanding was accepted by John Calvin and became what is commonly called the Reformed view of baptism. As an explanation of baptism’s meaning and purpose, this Reformed view has been adopted by almost all non-Lutheran Protestants.

The bottom line is that the view of baptism that has been presented here, that baptism is the point of time when God bestows the double cure of salvation, is not the new view but was the consensus view of all Christendom until Zwingli changed it in the sixteenth century. The nonsalvation view held by most Protestants is actually the new view. Those of us who agree with the original consensus do not have to feel at all uncomfortable or apologetic about it.

This does, however, raise a second question, namely, on what basis do Zwinglians reject the original consensus view? Zwingli himself argued that the older view attributed to water a power that belongs only to the blood of Christ. This argument is off the mark, though, since the blood of Christ was always regarded as the only source of forgiving power; baptism was merely the time during which (or for some, the instrument by which) this saving power is applied to the sinner. It was never regarded as substitute for the blood of Christ.

Another version of this objection is that a physical event such as baptism can have no connection with the spiritual effect of cleansing the soul. In this connection Zwingli’s favorite verse was John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” But this objection also overlooks the fact that the baptismal waters effect no cleansing; this event is simply the occasion for the Spirit’s work. Also those who think a physical event can have no connection with a spiritual result should consider the crucifixion of Christ and its connection with their own salvation.

Another reason Zwingli rejected a conditional connection between baptism and salvation was that he regarded this as a negation of the sovereignty of God. God sovereignly chooses to save whomever he wishes (in unconditional election), and he sovereignly bestows his salvation whenever he wishes. To say that he must save a person in baptism makes God’s saving work dependent upon an act of man. However, this objection overlooks the fact that a truly sovereign God has the prerogative to limit himself and to establish conditions for salvation if he so chooses. To do so is simply an expression of his sovereignty. Besides, Augustine and Luther had views of divine sovereignty similar to that of Zwingli, and they had no problem seeing baptism as conditional for salvation.

Another objection to the consensus view is that it confuses water baptism with Spirit baptism. It is likely that Zwingli was the first to separate the “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) into two separate events, and most Protestants have subsequently accepted this bifurcation. They say that a sinner receives spiritual baptism from the Holy Spirit, which is the baptism that actually saves, as soon as faith begins. Then usually at some later time he is baptized in water as a witness to the salvation already received. Zwinglians then declare that any NT text that appears to connect baptism with salvation (e.g., Romans 6:3-5, Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12) must be talking about spiritual baptism, not water baptism.

In response to this idea we need only go back to Ephesians 4:5, which affirms that just as there is “one Lord” and “one faith,” so there is but “one baptism.” A sinner is baptized once, period. This one event has an external side, which is immersion in water; it also has an internal side, which is the saving work of God. We may call the latter “spiritual baptism,” but it is not separated in time from the former. Thus unless we want to deny this cardinal truth of Scripture – that there is but one baptism – we must understand the NT passages about baptism and salvation as referring to our baptism in water.

Probably the most common reason for rejecting the original consensus view (that baptism is the time when salvation is received) is based on the relation between grace and works. How can baptism be for salvation, if “by grace you have been saved through faith; and…not as a result of works” (Ephesians 2:8-9)? Martin Luther tells us that his Zwinglian opponents challenged his view of baptism with this very argument. They claimed that Luther was teaching works-salvation, since baptism must surely be regarded as a work. Luther absolutely denied that his view constituted works-salvation, however. “Yes,” he said, “it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God’s” (“Large Catechism,” IV:35, p. 441). Luther is exactly right on this point.

The problem with this whole objection is that it is based on a faulty view of works. In view of texts such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, and Galatians 2:16, where works and faith are contrasted, Zwinglians assume that everything besides faith must be placed in the category of works, with works being understood as “things we do.” Since baptism is a “thing we do,” it must be a work and therefore cannot be for salvation.

This view of works is seriously false, however. For one thing, faith itself is a work in the generic sense of “things we do,” according to Jesus in John 6:28-29. Thus whatever “works” means in Pauline texts such as Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-9, it must mean something besides “things we do.”

I agree that there are just two categories of “things we do,” one of which consists of conditions for salvation that are consistent with grace, the other of which consists of human acts that cannot be conditions for receiving grace (Romans 11:6). We may label these categories “faith” and “works,” but these terms must be regarded as shorthand or abbreviated labels for the categories and not the exclusive contents of each. That faith cannot be the only “thing we do” in the category of grace conditions has already been established by the inclusion of both repentance and confession therein. When these are accepted as belonging in the same category as faith, there can be no grace-based objection to adding baptism to the list.

What then is the nature of the category labeled “works?” The key to a proper understanding of this term, especially as used by Paul, is in Romans 3:28 (see Cottrell, Romans, I:267-271). Here Paul says, “That a man is justified by faith apart from works from the Law.” The exact translation of the latter prepositional phrase (choris ergon nomou is “apart from works of law.” There are no definite articles, and the word “law” should not be capitalized. Paul is referring not the Law of Moses exclusively, but to all forms in which the law of God is available to his creatures, including the internally inscribed laws which are known even by pagans (Romans 2:15).

The category labeled “works,” then, is really “works of law.” In this expression “law” includes any and all commands given by God as Creator to human beings as his creatures, and “works” includes any response of man as creature to the law commands of the Creator. Nothing in this category can be a condition for salvation under the grace system.

What, then, is the nature of the category labeled “faith?” This category includes anything that human beings as sinners must do in obedience to God the Redeemer’s instructions on how to receive salvation. God issues these instructions not in his role as Creator but in his role as Redeemer. We respond to them not as a creature responds out of duty to the law commands of his Creator, but as a sinner responds out of hope to the gospel commands of the Redeemer. This is what is called “becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), or obeying the gospel (Romans 10:16 [ESV]; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Peter 4:17). Faith is the representative act of obedience to gospel commands; but this category also includes repentance, confession, and baptism. Why? Because these are all acts of obedience to the Redeemers’ instructions to sinners for receiving salvation. None of these can be called a “work of law,” since none is required of us merely as creatures.

We conclude that baptism as a condition for salvation is consistent with grace. It is not in the category of human works in the sense of passages such as Romans 3:20,28; 4:4-5; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16. The primary sense in which baptism is a work is that it is a work of God. The only saving work accomplished in baptism is being done by God himself. The sinner enters the baptismal waters with “faith in the working of God” in his heart (Colossians 2:12), trusting that God will at that moment keep his promises to bestow forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This leads to a final question, namely, what is the spiritual status of the millions of people who have mistakenly followed the false views of baptism, whether in regard to meaning, subjects, or mode? This is a very difficult question and cannot be thoroughly answered in the brief space available here. In general, though, we may answer it in two steps.

First, in view of the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject, we must say that only those who have consciously received immersion as a saving work of God can be confident of their present status as Christians and as members of the body of Christ. It is, of course, possible that in some cases God has made exceptions and has acted outside his stated plan of bestowing salvation upon believers in immersion, but we have no right to presume upon God in this respect. If someone who has not been biblically baptized is convinced that God has saved him, we may follow this procedure. One, while granting that God may have made an exception, we must insist that no one can know this for sure. Experience can be deceiving (Matthew 7:21-23). Two, we must make sure that the biblical teaching on baptism is clearly understood and accepted. Three, we must invite the person of unsure status to receive baptism properly, while calling upon God to work upon him whatever works of salvation he has not already worked. Only then can a person be sure of his present status before God.

Second, with regard to the future, in the final judgment we can expect God to judge all persons who have received baptism improperly in the same way that he will judge everyone else, namely, in accordance with their conscientious response to available light. No one will be condemned for failing to meet some particular requirement as long as he is conscientiously responding to whatever light is available to him (see Romans 4:15). It is obvious that human traditions have seriously distorted and limited the light of Scripture concerning baptism, and many sincere people have responded in good conscience to what light they have. For this reason we may hope to see such people in heaven.

This last point does not permit us to give anyone false assurance about his present state of salvation, however; nor does it give us the right to change the clear teaching of Scripture on believers’ immersion for salvation. The “available light” principle applies only to future judgment, and it can be applied only by the omniscient God. For us today, as individuals and as the church of Jesus Christ, we must continue to believe and proclaim the clear biblical teaching about baptism without cowardice and without compromise.