My Response to Why I Warn Against the Wilsons

 A friend of mine recently asked me why I didn't like Rachel Jankovic (author and daughter of Pastor Doug Wilson) and thought she was a hypocrite. Here is my response. (I will probably add to this as time goes on and I have more time to write more specific things.)

So my primary concern with Rachel is her affiliation and similar teaching/theology as her father (thus this post is about "the Wilson's"). I have done extensive digging into his theology, character, and handing of church/other matters and would put him in the category of a false teacher. There are too many serious concerns to not to. I believe his teaching to be dangerous. In fact, I consider Doug Wilson a dangerous false teacher and an abusive narcissist. So, while I will admit I have not thoroughly examined Rachel's writing/speaking very specifically, as she and her father work together and teach/hold to the same things I haven’t felt it was necessary to spend the time to do that. 

 

As for their hypocrisy... a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. If someone claims to be an orthodox, Biblical teacher, but teaches things that are opposed to, even offensive to the truths of Orthodox Christianity, than umm yeah that makes them a hypocrite. So the real issue here is whether or not what the Wilson's teach is consistent with Scripture and Orthodox Christianity.

 

I will below list my main areas of concern with the Wilson's (and by this I mean Doug Wilson, his family or really anyone associated with him). Please note I don’t necessarily agree with everything his critics say or believe themselves, but when it comes to the topic(s) at hand, I believe they are absolutely right in their critique and concerns. Those who have gleaned good things from the Wilson's may think they are just throwing stones, but most of them have tried very hard to be fair in their critiques and concerns. Some of these are or seem small, but small things add up as well. Small flaws in character add up to bigger ones. The more small things I saw, the more I slowly became concerned. It will take some time for you to get through all this…. It was several months of me listening, reading and researching to come to the convictions I have now.

 

Doug Wilson’s questionable (heretical?) theology: It is important to say that a lot of what the Wilson's say, *seems* orthodox and right, and a lot of it IS orthodox. However, their false doctrine/teaching is extremely sneaky and subtle. I will share a lot of what others have written/said since they have done more extensive work and say it better than I could.

 

His view of Justification This is one of the biggest and most serious concerns. I really don’t have time to write out a whole explanation and argument, plus the two below do it very well:

https://theocast.org/is-doug-wilson-a-false-teacher/

https://thelondonlyceum.com/on-justification-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-doctrine/

 

On Federal Vision: This is rather complex, but to summarize for you, Wilson says he’s Reformed, but the views he holds on the Covenants and on justification do not line up with traditional/orthodox Reformed theology. A lot of Reformed people outside his camp have serious concerns with views on this (and obviously Arminians would strongly disagree with him in this area of theology as well).  https://carm.org/about-theology/what-is-federal-vision-theology-and-is-it-biblical/

 

(P.S. Doug Wilson has claimed he no longer holds to “Federal Vision” however, it is very important to note that he has NOT rejected the theology that Federal Vision holds to - and that is the problem. In other words, he’s rejecting the label but keeping the theology. Tricksy… and completely hypocritical.)

 

Views on men’s/women’s roles:  The more I have read/heard from the Wilson's on this topic, the more I have been seriously concerned - and downright disgusted. The extreme patriarchy is very subtle at times, but I would assert is NOT in line with Biblical complementarianism. Again, they say a lot of things thare are actually right or at least *seem* right, but digging deeper I have often seen some red flags and have thoughts like “ehhh I’m not sure that’s quite right/balanced”. And on further study, I've found their view to not be in line with Scripture. As Rachel has written more about the area of womenhood it's important to address her specifically here. But as she is collusion with her father, I cannot freely trust her view on being a Biblical woman/wife/mother. While I have seen she does have many good and right things to say, there are also some huge concerns and wrong theology... At best, I would have to give too many cautions to feel I could recommend her to anyone. 

 Here's an article documenting the abusive teaching on a wife's obligation to submit to rape: https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-church-that-preaches-wives-need-to-be-led-with-a-firm-hand/

Here is something from Rachel's own mouth... she's being grossly mistreated/controlled and doesn't even see it... seriously? What Christ-like husband would treat his brand new wife like this???: https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/346749201336488 

And while we're at it, here's another video from Rachel with a rather shocking condemning and hypocritical attitude. Other's "know for absolute certain?" You're a woman, you can't do anything right - that is the main message I've gotten from Rachel.  https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/1920306348165019

And one more for you: 

I can also talk about Nancy Wilson and her parenting advice.... you can watch clips of her "Biblical parenting advice" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75lZfjq_GWg  The whole Wilson family also appears in this video - notice the gaslighting from several of them - Dean (the host/critic) is really good at pointing out the red flags you should notice. (P.S This is very similar to the Pearl's borderline(at best?) abusive parenting advice - STAY AWAY! P.S.S. I am not at all anti-spanking, I think it can be fine done correctly, but it can very easily be done wrongly.)

I will add here that I have personal experience of having to submit to and respect a husband who was in the wrong - who was going the wrong direction theologically - it was hard, I had to learn and grow a lot in my obedience to God in my submission and attitude towards my husband, however, my complementarianism/beliefs about submission are NOT the same as the Wilson's. I would absolutely not put them in the same category.  

I have seen too many quotes and heard things Doug Wilson himself has said that are downright demeaning to women and completely unbiblical. Here’s an example: It might just be a woman's fault if she gets raped.... “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.” (Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage, p. 13) (And no, I’m not taking this out of context, you can read more in articles I’ve shared).

 

Here’s some people who have written about concerns in this area:

https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/category/doug-wilson/

https://mereorthodoxy.com/sex-submission-and-evangelicals-doug-wilson-controversial-words

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/01/15/pastor-doug-wilson-on-rape-submission-feminists-and-boobs/

 

Doug Wilson/Christ’s church handing of sexual sin and sexual abuse:

This is another HUGE concern. I'm not sure there is another area of all of life that makes me more angry than the ignoring/injustice of abuse in "Christian" environments. If I were to curse like Doug Wilson and his crew does, this is where I'd do it. Not only do the above patriarch views allow for this kind of thing to flourish, there continues to be very little accountability or serious concern for protecting others and dealing with abusers appropriately. There has been NO admission of “hey maybe we got this wrong” only defensive tactics. I have looked into this probably the most extensively - I have listened to the victims and others who witnessed the situation(s), read reports, the actual court cases, etc.

You can find more information about the abuse cases at this link (which also provides links to actual court cases): https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

 

Another article on this issue:

https://religiondispatches.org/sexual-abuse-is-inevitable-in-christian-patriarchy-just-take-a-look-at-doug-wilsons-christ-church-and-its-new-documentary-eve-in-exile-the-restoration-of-femininity/

 

Other personal/character concerns:

His crude language and sexualized content. This is mentioned in several of the resources I’ve shared, but worth stating again. Much of it is downright disgusting and inappropriate for a Christian. I have directly read and personally listened to SO many crude things, and swear words (F-word, s-word, d-word and so much more) from Doug Wilson and from others who work closely with him. I will not link any videos or proof of this one but it's easy to find. They literally throw these words around the same as an unbeliever would. Is this really the kind of people you want to recommend to others?

 

Also, when he first was trying to become pastor of his current church, the elders didn’t think he conformed to their statement of faith (mainly having to do with his view of justification above). They asked him to either conform or step down. Instead, he mobilized church members to support him and basically forced the other elders to resign/leave and took over the leadership of the church. It was a forcible power struggle that he won. This is not an appropriate way to be any kind of respectable leader and I consider this a very bad indication of his character - but it lines up with other control issues that are reported. (This whole thing is common knowledge and a number of people have written about it - it’s mentioned in several of the resources I shared.) The main reason Wilson formed his own denomination is that none of the other main (Presbyterian Church of America is where he first tried to join) denominations would accept him. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with starting your own denomination, but if it’s because you can’t find a single one you could at least be acceptable in - that indicates a problem. Not to mention I'm pretty sure he's just a narcissist who wants to be in complete control.

 

 

Other resources:

I would recommend checking out this facebook page (they are also on Instagram) - I wouldn’t agree with all their angles or everything they say, but they bring to light a lot of what I mentioned above and a lot of provide evidence in videos, quotes, documents, etc. https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow

 

This is written by a unitarian, so obviously there are some things in there we wouldn’t agree with him on, however he tries to be fairly fair and goes through some of the other things mentioned above as well as some I didn’t take the time to mention (i.e. Doug Wilson’s controlling nature, sloppy writing and references in writing, his view on slavery in America, his extreme patriarchy, extreme political views, etc. - all of which I would agree are concerning).

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsonempire.htm

 

 

In closing, so yes, I absolutely warn against the Wilson's, and anyone associated with them. If you're not convinced yet, take the time to listen to/read through the links provided.

Major Views on Baptism

When you start looking into specifics, it is rather astonishing how many different views there are on the subject of Christian baptism. It’s actually a little disheartening that there’s so many different views since we should hope that Christians would agree more on important doctrines like this one, but here we are. In this post I have laid out a summary of each of the major positions trying not to show (much) bias. These are just the major ones, there are often variations within each group as well. Each group will appeal to Scripture for support and often many of the same Scriptures, some better than others, but the real difference in the views usually comes down to Biblical interpretation, which is why figuring out how to properly interpret Scripture is so important. Everyone is prone to interpret Scripture in light of their own denomination or church tradition and being able to break out of that and look at Scripture with fresh eyes is super important. We should never just believe something because our church or pastor or tradition teaches it.

A few things to keep in mind as we think about baptism and it's relationship to salvation: Scripture talks about believers as those who have been saved (past tense, usually referring to conversion), who are being saved (present tense) and who will be saved (future tense). In the discussion of baptism, “conversion” is rather central to the argument and whether that comes before baptism, after baptism, or during or partially through baptism. The discussion comes down to these two key questions: What does it mean to be in the New Covenant? And when/how does God change the heart and give new life to someone?

I did not cite Scriptures in each view since again most views will use the same Scriptures to defend their view. Key verses on baptism used by most or all groups in their defense are: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:1-41; 8:36-39; 16:30-33, Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-12, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, I have discussed many of these Scriptures and more in a previous post here.

 

Major Views on Baptism:

 

Symbolic-Only Credo-Baptist View: Baptism is the proper response to God’s grace in salvation through faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church and a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Baptism is not a "means of grace" it is strictly symbolic, and a testimony to one's conversion. It is not essential for someone to be considered "saved," however, as it is commanded by Christ/Scripture, true believers should be obedient to the Lord’s command.

Here’s a longer explanation on this view: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-baptism.html

 

Low-sacramental/Reformed Credo-Baptist view: This view is very similar to the last, but slightly different and views it as a little more important. Baptism is the proper response to God when He has converted the heart and brought about faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Furthermore, (and this is what distinguishes this view from a strict symbol view) Christ (and the Holy Spirit) are spiritually present in the act of Baptism and thus it is also a “means of grace” and an opportunity for spiritual blessing/encouragement. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church, a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance, and a grace-filled, powerful reminder of their position in Christ. While this view sees Baptism as more than just a physical act and more accurately as also a spiritual one that Christ meets us in in a rather mysterious way, baptism does not bestow forgiveness, wash away sin, or put the person "into" Christ. It is Christ that accomplished our forgiveness/justification on the cross, and new life/adoption is bestowed upon us the moment we believe by the Holy Spirit. Baptism could be considered the culmination of the "salvation experience," but it is not “essential” in the sense that one can temporarily or ignorantly delay their baptism and still be considered saved. However, it is commanded, and true believers must be obedient to the Lord’s commands to have true assurance of their salvation and for admission of their "official" membership in the visible Church. Like a wedding where the witnesses give their testimony to what has occurred, baptism is an important moment where the individual is outwardly joined with the visible church. While baptism can be said to “save” (lower case “s” referring to our ongoing salvation) or be an “effectual” means of grace, baptism doesn’t “save” (justify) us or put us "into Christ". It is meaningful and important, but still largely a symbol and outward sign of the work God has already accomplished internally.

Longer discussion and Q&A here: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html

 

Presbyterian/Low Anglican View: Baptism is “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or one’s ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of one’s giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” (WCF) Baptism is the act of God bringing a person into the Covenant family. In addition to adult believers, children of believers should also be baptized. Like circumcision in the OT brought children of Israelites into the Covenant, so baptism also brings the children of believers into the visible church and the New Covenant. By itself it is incomplete. It is an outward sign that must be completed/fulfilled through personal faith and repentance. Therefore, baptism is not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation, faith and repentance must (eventually) be evident. Baptism is required to be considered a Christian but one can be saved prior to being baptized.

The Presbyterian view is based largely on the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) here: https://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c28.htm  

For the official Anglican position see below.

(These last 3 views are the most controversial, and [in my opinion] the furthest from Scripture.)

Efficacious Church-of-Christ View: Man’s response to God in salvation is six-fold: Hear the Word, Believe, Repent of sin, Confess faith in Christ, Be baptized, Be faithful to the end. Baptism is but one aspect of the being saved. Furthermore, baptism is the “occasion of salvation,” the moment that God brings a person into Christ, into His body, His Church. It is not a work that we do, rather it is God’s work in which He washes away our sin, gives the Holy Spirit and bestows new life. Baptism is absolutely necessary for one to be a Christian and be saved. Therefore, baptism should only be given to those who make a profession of faith and should be administered with no delay.

Depending on who you talk to, some COC folks will say that one may still go to Heaven if they die on the way to their baptism, but others will say that God would not allow a genuine believer to die before being baptized (thus that person would be lost). However, all would agree that if a professing Christian delays their baptism for any reason they cannot be considered saved.

See a longer defense of this view here: http://www.christianlandmark.com/the-church-of-christ-teaches-the-truth-on-baptism/

 

Sacramental High Anglican/Lutheran view: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God gives or cultivates the gift of faith and graciously bestows new life on the individual, bringing them into his family. It works forgiveness of sin and eternal life for all who believe. Baptism should thus be administered to believing adults or children of believers. Although baptism kindles God’s grace and turns our hearts towards God, it does not necessarily “convert” our heart. God’s work in baptism may be resisted because for baptism to truly be beneficial, it must be combined with a personal profession of faith (will be later if they are baptized as an infant) and continued faith and obedience, otherwise the baptism becomes ineffective. We should look to what God did in our baptism and trust His ability to save us. Most would believe that one can ignorantly delay baptism and still be saved, but their salvation may still be questioned. This view also usually believes that the grace given in baptism can be lost, and the person baptized be unsaved.

The “official” Anglican position on baptism in the 39 Articles is rather vague. Some Anglicans hold to this higher sacramental view, for others, it’s more a “sign and a seal” (similar to Presbyterian above). For a more thorough explanation see: https://anglicancompass.com/holy-baptism/

The main difference of Lutheranism from Anglicanism is that Lutherans believe infants can actually have faith and that baptism cultivates that faith. The official Lutheran position is largely based on Luther’s shorter catechism: “[Baptism] works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe”. The official Lutheran position believes in security of the elect, and while they believe baptism does "work forgiveness" they will also say that baptismal grace can be lost if the person does not continue to believe. Further Lutheran explanation: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/what-is-the-lutheran-view-of-baptism/

 

Sacramental Roman Catholic View: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God cleanses one of original and previously committed sin. Faith is not given at baptism, rather the faith of the parents sustains them until confirmation. Thus, those baptized must be confirmed later when the child is older for it to be truly effective. Baptism is to be administered to infants or professing adults for forgiveness of original sin without which there is no entrance into Heaven.

Catholic explanation: https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/a-guide-to-catholic-baptism/

A few observations from this study: In case you didn't already know, I personally am convinced of the Reformed Credo-Baptist position. Baptism is very important and special and there is "grace" given in it, but it is still completely separate from conversion and, other than being a spiritually encouraging/enriching experience, and an affirmation/witness of one's acceptance into the visible church, it does not change anything spiritually. Every other view in this post falls short of what I see Scripture teaching and/or adds to it in some way.

-It is interesting to note that the more "sacramental" one gets, the more (conscious) personal faith is separated from baptism. And the more unique spiritual conversion is blurred and ultimately eliminated altogether. Baptism becomes something done in order to attain forgiveness, which completely distorts the Gospel message.

-Also, the more sacramental you go, the more baptism becomes what "makes" someone a member of the New Covenant, or even a "Christian", and, the more likely it is that they could lose that status. At the very least, "baptismal grace" can be lost and thus the meaning/symbolism of baptism is ultimately lost. 

-When it comes to Infant Baptism, faith and/or salvation is often assumed unless it is not confirmed, the individual rejects their baptism, or they show themselves to be unrepentant. In keeping with this, there is sometimes not a clear calling of the child to personal saving faith in Christ and their need for salvation/conversion. There may be a call to "keep their baptism vows," the need to be confirmed, or something like that, but especially the more sacramental you get, the less there is a call or an emphasis on the need for conversion.  My biggest concern with infant baptism is exactly this, and it's one way the Old Covenant failed: If they are already part of the "covenant community" what need is there for conversion? The New Covenant is better than the old - those that are in it, are truly saved not just quasi-members. You cannot be a member of Christ by birth or by baptism. Let's make one thing clear: One is united with Christ by the Spirit and by the Spirit alone. No circumcision or water baptism needed. To deny this is to deny basic Biblical teaching on justification. Furthermore, if baptism ingrafts one into Christ or into the New Covenant, it minimizes (or even destroys) the deep symbolism and meaning of baptism and ultimately, what Christ has accomplished for His people.

 

P.S. I highly recommend this sermon series by James White on this subject. It goes through all the various Scriptures and arguments.

The Case for Weekly Communion

One of the things that I like about the current church we go to is the fact that they do communion every week. The non-denominational church we attended in Philadelphia for a few years also did communion every week but it’s actually very uncommon outside of traditional churches (like Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or more traditional Presbyterian). Many "high" churches will actually do it almost every time the church meets, so often during the week as well or for special/holiday services. Personally, I feel doing it more than once a week is more unnecessary, but I can appreciate their desire to be consistent on this point. 

 When we read the book of Acts and the formation and early practice of the Church, it is rather evident that they “broke bread” very often. 

Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts…” While they went to the Temple daily, it’s not as clear as to the frequency or practicalities of “breaking bread”. This is also at the very beginning of the Church so they had yet to develop any kind of clear organization or pattern, so it is very possible that they did break bread whenever they were able to gather together.  

Acts 20:11: Paul is speaking to the church in Troas that had gathered for worship "on the first day of the week" and they “broke bread and ate”. This seems to be what they did on a weekly basis. (Based on Scripture and very early church history, gathering on first day of the week very quickly became the norm and breaking of bread was always a part of it.)

In 1 Corinthians 11 we have the only time the Lord’s Supper is clearly addressed in the Epistles. Paul is correcting some abuses, including the fact that the wealthier Corinthians were not waiting for everyone to eat, nor sharing their food with the poor (likely even segregating themselves from them). It does seem that the communion time was a whole meal centered around the bread and the cup – similar to the Passover which was also a whole meal. It’s also evident here that the Lord’s Supper happened often, “when you come together as a church” (assumption then is weekly, on the first day of the week, see also 1 Cor 16:1-2). Paul warns them not to partake “unworthily,” which in the immediate context refers to the division they were causing, since a big emphasis of the Lord’s supper is the unity of the body. How can you partake of the Lord’s supper if there is disunity in your heart or otherwise towards a fellow Christian? (Note: I think there could absolutely be room for “unworthily” including sin in general, I’m just pointing out the immediate context here.)

There are some Christian groups that still think that the Lord’s supper should be connected with an actual meal, but when Christ instituted the sacrament, it is “after supper” and he is referring very specifically to just the bread and the cup. (Of course, I’m all for fellowship meals since eating together is a great way to fellowship, serve and be together as a church family, it’s just not necessary.)

I would argue that the early church probably didn’t do communion every time they had a gathering of some kind. For example, if a small group was gathered for prayer (like when Peter was imprisoned in Acts 12)) or they had a church meeting (Acts 15). Of course, it doesn’t say they did or didn’t, but it does seem that very quickly the pattern became that they broke bread for their main weekly gathering. Early church tradition reinforces this.

Why then do most Protestant churches only do communion once a month? Does not Scriptures indicate that communion MORE often is more likely than having it LESS often? Below are two common reasons I have heard for not doing it at least weekly:

 

• It’s not necessary to do it every week.

If by “necessary” you mean “clearly required,” I guess there is no clear command in Scripture that says “do this every week”. However, Paul does seem to indicate a pattern of this happening on a weekly basis and furthermore he says, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor 11:26). So the question is: How often should we be remembering and “proclaiming” the Lord’s death? Is this not to be a central part of our worship together as a Church? Are you really going to insist that it is not necessary for Christians to “share in the Lord’s death” or “proclaim the Lord’s death” at least weekly when you gather together?

 

• Doing communion too often turns it into a ritual or makes it not as “special”.

 This is the most common excuse. I say excuse, because that’s still what it is. Because anything can become ritualistic if we’re not careful. Every church has traditions, every church has things they do “just because that’s how we do it” but we don’t get all concerned about other things becoming a “ritual”. While this might seem like an understandable concern, ultimately we should be more concerned about doing what Scripture says, not avoiding it out of concerns of mis-use. The church in Corinth was absolutely abusing the Lord’s Supper… that was serious. But the solution to this was not to avoid it or do it less often, it was to strive to take it more seriously. So, Biblically, taking it “seriously” does NOT mean you do it less often. 

 

•  It makes the service longer, more complicated, more work/money.

I resort to above arguments. If these are your excuses, you're in danger of possibly being lazy and/or plain disobedient.  

I’d love to see the Church at large have the Lord’s Supper weekly. Pray about it and consider the importance Scripture lays on it. Whether you take a sacramental view or a memorial view it’s meaningful and important. And it’s the pattern we see in Scripture as well as very early Church history.

On a side note: those who take communion should also be baptized. This is also the pattern in Scripture, and it's also very clear in early church history that new converts were not allowed to take the Lord's Supper prior to baptism. 

 

Scripture Texts & More on Baptism

I have spent quite a lot of time studying baptism over the years. I'm no expert of course but I feel I've done a fair share. I studied believers/infant baptism (and Covenant theology/New Covenant Theology) a few years ago, and recently have dug deeper into the subject as a whole. In this post I look at various Scripture passages as well as some early church writing. Below are key passages that mention baptism, followed by additional important passages on salvation/justification that do not have any mention of baptism, then notes on early church history, and at the end is a further study/resource list. The additional Scripture is important because those who seek to equate salvation with baptism or defend infant baptism have to explain why it is completely left out of key passages on salvation. Church history is relevant because these are the people Scripture was directly written to and what they believed about what Scripture teaches matters.

Before we begin, the word for "baptism" (baptizo in Greek) means to submerge, to immerse, specifically of ceremonial dipping. It is important to note however, that "baptism" does NOT always refer to physical water baptism. For example:

In Matthew 20:22-23, Jesus is talking to the sons of Zebedee and asks,  "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” When they say yes, he responds, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” 

Very clearly this is NOT water baptism. His cup is suffering and his baptism is either suffering as well or I supposed you could argue that it's a Spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit). Either way, we have a passage that clearly uses baptism as spiritual and not in any way related to water. Also there are the numerous passages that refer to the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" which is also distinct from water baptism.

A common mistake people make is that when "baptism" is used in Scripture they assume it means water baptism, but that is not always the case. Our task then is to discern what kind of baptism the text means by using the immediate context and then using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

 

KEY TEXTS used for Baptism:

John 3:5: "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

 

While many think that "water" here refers to baptism, I believe born of “water and Spirit” here is referring to spiritual cleansing (water) and spiritual power (Spirit). Water is very often used as a metaphor for spiritual cleansing throughout Scripture. Furthermore, if Jesus had meant water baptism, 1) why didn't he clearly say so (the word baptism is not used), 2) why doesn't he ANYWHERE else in the Gospels connect baptism to salvation? Especially if it is THAT important of a connection with salvation?

Side note, in verse 3 the text can be interpreted as "born again" OR "born from above". Nicodemus interprets it as the former, but Jesus is talking about the latter. We see this "born from above" emphasis more clearly in other parts of John's writing (see John 1:12-13, 1 John 5:4).

Also see:  https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html 

(Note: I will cite some sources where I feel they explain the text better than I could.)

Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

I read one author who tried to say that the "order" here doesn't matter. But Jesus very clearly says "make disciples.... baptizing THEM". Who? The disciples, the believers. If you change the order you are no longer baptizing who Jesus commanded us to. 

Romans 6:

In our discussion of Romans 6, it is important that we note that this is the first mention of baptism in the book so in order to understand chapter 6 we must understand the context. A key verse of the book is found in 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." Paul spends the next chapter or so talking about the universality of sin, then spends almost three chapters on justification by faith. Over and over he stresses the idea that justification is imputed apart from any works (or even any response) on our part. At the end of chapter 5 we see that we have been saved by the death of Christ and been given new life in Him. Finally in chapter 6 he addresses the question of "well if I'm justified by grace than does it matter if I continue to sin?" Paul then uses the metaphor of baptism to talk about how we have died to sin and been raised to new life in Christ so completely that to even consider such a question is horrible. We are not the same, we are dead sin - and he furthers this idea in chapter 7 of a spouse having died is no longer bound to the marriage. In light of what Christ has done for us, we are to "reckon" this truth over and over so that we will live accordingly. 

Many people assume that Paul is talking strictly about water baptism here, but what if he's talking about something deeper? There is a spiritual baptism that also occurs, some argue it happens at water baptism, but one cannot express faith apart from spiritually being baptized. Spiritual rebirth, spiritual circumcision, spiritual baptism are what make us a child of God, not the water rite. 

I will add a personal note here: I have been (water) baptized twice. The first was when I was 11 and thought I was saved (I had prayed and asked Jesus into my heart when I was 8), and wanted to "do the right thing". I'm sure God was working in my life throughout my my good Christian upbringing, however, I had a very clear conversion moment when I was 13, and later in my 20's it was exactly this passage that convicted me I needed to be rebaptized. Since I was not convinced I was saved prior to my first baptism, and because I realized how powerful the baptism was that Christ had done in my heart, I felt I needed to make a public confession of it. It was a cold October day in a lake but I shall never forget it. The symbolism was so rich and to disconnect this moment from my faith and trust in Christ would drain it of it's beauty.

1 Corinthians 1:17: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." 

 

Here Paul is admonishing the Church at Corinth for being divisive about who baptized them. Paul is saying "it doesn't matter who baptized you, that is not important, what is important is the Gospel." This verse is important because although Paul clearly indicates that baptism itself is important, he separates it from the Gospel message. In other words, baptism is not a part of the initial salvation/conversion, rather it comes afterwards. If salvation came in fullness only with baptism that it should be a part of the Gospel.

1 Cor 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy"

This passage says absolutely nothing about water or baptism, it's not even implied, yet pedobaptists still try and use it in defense of it. The reasoning is that the rest of the family is sanctified/set apart/made holy through the faith of one spouse/parent - a covenant/family relationship, implying that the whole family followed the head into the new religion. One problem with that is that clearly here we have an "unbelieving" spouse and the passage is talking about unequally yoked marriage. Also, if the husband was not a Christian it is very unlikely he would have agreed to have his children baptized. There is a sense in which the children of believers (even an unbelieving spouse) are "sanctified." The person's faith in Christ affects the household, the parent's relationship and how the children are raised. But again, this passage says nothing about baptism so why should we assume that's what it's talking about?

1 Cor 12:12-13: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all be made to drink into one Spirit”.

 We are baptized into one body, the Church. The question is, WHEN does this happen? I do believe that at baptism is when a person "formally" enters the Church. Prior to that they may be saved, but they have not yet been publicly joined to the Church. Notice that it is "by the Spirit" that this happens, and we are also "made to drink into one Spirit". Apart from the Spirit's working, baptism means nothing.

 

Galatians 3:26-27:  “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

The whole book of Galatians is Paul responding the the false teaching that those who believe in Christ must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul destroys this idea and argues that we are justified by faith, not anything we do as a result. In light of this, it doesn't make sense that Paul would then turn around and say "oh but you DO have to be baptized in order to be saved".  In this verse we become sons first (through faith), then baptism is as a active putting-on-Christ. As Children, we actively "clothe" ourselves in Christ. This makes baptism very important, but it is fairly evident that justification is apart from baptism.  (See Romans above as well.)

 

Ephesians 4:5: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

 

Recall that most people see "baptism " and immediately assume water baptism. I might be inclined to think this is spiritual although I will note the word "baptism" here in the Greek has a suffix on it which emphasizes it is a result (presumably of repentance). It could be spiritual or physical, but clearly it is the result of repentance not something that happens prior to it. This is another reason why I'm inclined to think my first baptism was not valid... I did not have repentance.

 

Colossians 2:11-12: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

 

Christ’s circumcision (our justification, or what we usually refer to nowadays as “being saved”) is a “putting off of the sinful nature” and being “buried with him… and raised with him through your faith in the power of God.” (Col 2:11-12). Clearly the circumcision here is spiritual, not literal. It would make sense then for the baptism to also be spiritual and not strictly literal. It would indeed be strange for Paul to stress that the physical ritual of circumcision wasn’t what put off the sins of the flesh/united with Christ but that it was a physical ritual of water baptism that did.

See: http://www.lifeinchristministries.com/teachings/does-colossians-212-teach-salvation-by-baptism/

And: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/buried-and-raised-in-baptism-through-faith

 

1 Peter 3:21: "There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

 

In the context Peter is talking about Noah being saved "through water". Noah was not saved by the water, he was saved by the ark through the water. The water from the flood "cleansed" the earth - it killed everyone on it - although sin still remained. Remember water is symbolic of cleansing, it doesn’t actually cleanse because only Jesus can do that. So here Peter is using baptism as a "antitype" - baptism saves us in type, it doesn't actually save. It "cleanses" us in type. The symbolism is rich.

See: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

Remember we must interpret Scripture with other Scripture. Does this verse mean that unless we are baptized we CANNOT receive forgiveness of sins? How can it, when other Scriptures talk about forgiveness apart from any mention of baptism? Furthermore, does it mean we can't receive the Spirit until we're baptized (when other Scriptures show us otherwise)? Peter has likely just linked repentance and baptism because he assumes the 2nd must follow the former, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our sins aren't forgiven until the moment we are baptized.

 

Good explanation here: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

Here is also James White on this verse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUR6-G8SNI

 

Acts 10:44-48: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.  And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,  “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 

Salvation/justification and the coming of the Spirit came to these believers prior to baptism. Baptism was a sign and seal that they had been accepted into the Church/were recognized as brothers/sisters in Christ. It was important and "necessary," but not for their having received the Spirit/becoming "born again". 

 

 

ADDITIONAL TEXTS on Salvation/Justification:  

Ephesians 1:13-14: “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” 

 

We are saved through the Word of truth, the Gospel. Having believed, we are sealed by the Spirit. No mention of water or baptism here.

 

John 1:12-13: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Here we see that we are born (literally "begotten") of God, not based on our nationality or our own will or of the will of other people, but entirely of God. To THESE, those who believe, are given the right to be children of God. How then can anyone who does not profess Christ be called a child of God or be considered a member of the Invisible Church? Also, if it is not our our "will" than how can we choose to be baptized in order to truly be saved?

 

John 6:37-40: "Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

Jesus will save and keep all those whom the Father has given him. Should we dare presume that God has begun a work of salvation in a baby who does not yet believe? Certainly many adults are baptized that later show they are not converted, we cannot know people's hearts; we can only judge their profession and life of repentance/obedience.

Romans 8:5-8: "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit^. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

 

Here we see that those who are filled with the Spirit are "regenerated" (as we use the term today). They are illuminated, changed, "born again". Before they were at enmity with God, but now they are able to please Him. What changed? They have the Spirit. Water or baptism is never mentioned; this is not the result of man's faith acting in obedience, this is all God.

Romans 10:9-10: "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

 

Salvation is attained or applied through confession of Christ as Lord and faith in His work; there is no mention of water or baptism in this passage.  Some will assume that "confession" here means our public confession at baptism, but there is no reasonable reason to assume this since the text says nothing about it. Verse 13 goes on to say "whoever  calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." It is not necessarily a public confession or baptism that saves you (although it is an important step and a validation of your salvation in a way), it is one's repentance and crying out to God for salvation.

 

1 Corinthians 15:3-5: a short summary on the Gospel and the resurrection. No mention of water or baptism.

 

Early Church History & Baptism:

 THIS VIDEO is an excellent Baptist response by Gavin Ortlund on baptism and the early church, and he addresses peudobaptism as well as baptismal regeneration.

Reading the early church on this subject is a bit confusing. They often refer to baptism "regenerating". However, it is important to note a few things in understanding this.

1) Regeneration to them doesn't mean the same thing as we mean it today. The word appears only twice in Scripture (and only once in reference to salvation) and literally means "born again/anew". It is found in Titus 3:5 ("washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit") and Matt 19:28 where it refers to the new birth of the world when Christ sits on His throne. When we talk about regeneration today we tend to mean the illumination of the Holy Spirit, or a moment of being "born again" in the heart, meaning conversion. But the early church viewed the term much broader.

2) In the early church baptism happened immediately following a profession of faith and so they were often seen as the same event.

3) The public confession of baptism was a public testimony of the person's conversion from Judaism or paganism - and this was a HUGE deal. If a person wasn't willing to renounce all and follow Christ (in baptism) they couldn't be accepted as a true convert. In light of this, it's understandable that the early Christians sometimes blurred the line between salvation and water baptism. This is also relevant because today people tend to minimize or put off baptism as not that important when that was not the case at all in the beginning. Baptism was SO important that you couldn't be accepted as a Christian without it, however that does not by default mean that one is not saved unless/until they are baptized.

On infant baptism: There are scholars on both sides who say history is on "their" side. Seemingly more honest ones will admit history isn't conclusive. Personally I think you can find evidence to support either viewpoint if you look hard enough. Again, interpreting some early church writings is also rather tricky. 

 

One important document we should mention is the Didache. This was written sometime toward the end of the 1st century, and is one of the very earliest Christian writings we have. It was written to summarize some basic and core teachings for new converts. It talks about the baptism of “catechumen” (new converts) but there is no mention of family or children. The individual must be able to fast before their baptism therefore presumed to be old enough to do so. There is no indication that baptism has any “saving” benefit, but it is very obvious that it is an important initiation into the Church (the persons are called "catechumen" prior to baptism indicating that until they made this step of public confession they weren't fully accepted into the Church/allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper).

OTHER SOURCES:

Charles Hodge on Baptismal Regeneration:

We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean—

1. That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects. 

2. Nor that the word always and every where, when rightly presented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits. 

3. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth. In like manner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin, Acts 22, 16; or as uniting us to Christ, Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s death our death, Rom. 6, 4; Col. 2, 12; or as saving us, 1 Pet. 3, 21; they do not teach-i. That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor 2. That these effects always attend its right administration; nor 3. That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all the unbaptized perish. These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy many of the unbaptized are sanctified and saved.

How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers. The scriptural doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is —

1. That it is a divine institution.

2. That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved," Mark 16:16. It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," Romans 10:10. And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child — should be cut off from his people," Genesis 17:14. Yet children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the apostle teaches circumcision," Romans 3:26.

3. Baptism is a means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. Consequently the Scriptures contemplate regeneration as preceding baptism. But if faith, to which all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits be said to be conferred; in any case, through baptism? 

(From notes on Ephesians 5:27, source here.)

RESOURCES for further study:

Videos of Debates/Q&A's:

Baptism Debate with James White (Baptist view) and Gregg Strawbridge (Presbyterian view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXSPKjypoO8

Baptism & Justification vs Salvation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbhZgh7gDYI

BOOKS:

On the topic of baptism (especially believer's versus infant baptism) it is crutial you understand the three major interpretational views of Scripture: Covenantal theology, Dispensationalsim and Progressive Covenantalism/New Covenant Theology. If you accept Covenant Theology it is very likely you will also accept infant baptism, if you don't, you probably won't. Below are two books I'd recommend:

 

Continuity and Discontinunity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

In this book, thirteen noted evangelical theologians discuss, fairly but clearly, the continuity/discontinuity debate in regard to six basic categories: theological systems, hermeneutics, salvation, the Law of God, the people of God, and kingdom promises. This one is good although it really only discusses Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, there is a third view that is down the middle (Progressive Covenantalism, which is where I would fall). But you can get it here.

 

Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views. Find it here.  (Note: I have not actually read this one, but it's a more recent one that looks better because it has all three views.)

 

Also would recommend: 

Kingdom Through Covenant by Peter Gentry & Stephen Wellum. I read an older edition of this book

God’s Kingdom Through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology - see book review in this post.

Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett (see my review here.)

Understanding Four Views on Baptism (review here.)

 

Abraham's Four Seeds by John G. Reisinger (review here.) 

 

It Takes a Church to Baptize by Scot McKnight. This one is from an Anglican perspective and, to be honest, gives some of the best defense of infant baptism I've read, although I still remain unconvinced. I do agree mostly with McKnight's higher sacramental view of baptism however.

 

 

Articles/Websites:

http://www.earlychurch.net/Baptism.htm

This website was very helpful: 

 https://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=baptism

especially these posts:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/10/baptism-saves-you.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-infant-baptism.html

Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism

Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism (John Armstrong, general editor)

Baptism. One might think the subject is very straightforward, but the reality is that it is a complex subject in Scripture and among Christians the world over. This book lays out four major views on baptism within Protestant Christianity: Baptist view, Reformed (Presbyterian) view, Lutheran view, and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view. The forward and post-script by the editor were also very well written, stressing the unity that the four contributors do have in Christ and in other doctrine and expressing hope for helpful discussion and tolerance towards fellow Christians who have a different view. All four contributors have searched the Scriptures and become convinced of their viewpoint, and we must not sneer at those who interpret Scripture in a way that is different from ours - when these are views which have been held by many, many faithful Christians who love the Word of God. While we might disagree, we should at least seek to understand one another so that we might still have unity in Christ. This is a difficult task (as the editor confesses) but we look to Heaven where one day all shall be made clear.

 

In each section the contributor for each view gives his defense and then the three other contributors respond.

Baptist View: Thomas Nettles

I fully agree with Nettles’ Biblical and historical arguments for immersion, as well as for believers only baptism.

I did feel like the author shared his opinion more than Scripture at times (one responder did point out exactly that), especially in that he tried too hard to simplify baptism to just a symbol so that while the symbolism is certainly rich, the rite itself doesn’t really mean anything. It’s so simplified that it’s merely an initiation rite into the local church membership. This is unfortunate as I believe Scripture infers that there is more than “just symbolism” in baptism.

Reformed View: Richard Pratt

Pratt seemed to quote more from Confessions than from Scripture (although I will fairly note that the Confessions cite Scripture as their source), and I understand that Pratt quoted them because they summarized nicely what (the writers though) Scripture teaches, however, it would have been better to have more Scripture exposition. This was rather unfortunate. However, I have read other books/listened to lectures on this particular view that did use a lot of Scripture and so I certainly understand the reasonable Biblical arguments.                                                                                                                   

The first half of the chapter focused on baptism as sacrament, most of which I would agree with. Baptism as a “sacrament” is defines as such: “Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place though a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith”. Furthermore, “[s]piritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. Thus, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a ‘sacramental [i.e., mysterious] union.’”

Second half of the chapter focused on the covenantal nature of baptism. I do not agree with the “Covenantal” view of Scripture as taught by Reformed/Presbyterians. Also, if in baptism, the person does “undergo ‘the circumcision done by Christ’ as they are ‘buried with him in baptism,’” to apply this to infants who have no faith is, as far as I’m concerned, a slap in Christ’s face. Christ doesn’t save halfway. He is the perfect sacrifice and the perfect Savior. When he saves, he does so completely. To put baptism (the sign and seal) before the profession and actual conversion is a reversal of all that the New Covenant was intended to do.

Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view: John Castelein

Castelein also made a good argument for immersion and believers only. He also views baptism as more that “just” a symbol (opposed to the Baptist view) which I appreciate. However, while he avoids the word “sacrament” this is exactly how he views it, and for all his dislike of Roman Catholicism he makes the same mistake as they do. Whereas the Reformed view views baptism as a sign and a seal of salvation, Castelein ties baptism so tightly with salvation that it is in danger of becoming confused with having saving power itself. He calls baptism the “Biblical occasion of salvation”. While he denies the error of “baptismal regeneration” on the grounds that they do not baptize apart from a confession of faith, because he ties baptism and salvation so together, one could argue (and he admits some in his churches do) that apart from baptism one cannot be saved at all, even babies or those who intend to be baptized (which in the end is the same error because it is not Christ alone who saves, it is Christ + baptism). In his response to Castelein, Pratt (Reformed view) very rightly points out Castelein is confusing salvation (which is multi-layered and includes justification, faith, repentance, yes also baptism but also ongoing obedience and ultimately glorification) with justification (becoming right with God through the sacrifice of Christ). Also, whereas the Reformed view leaves the sacramental grace that comes through baptism a “mystery,” Castelein tries too hard to define what the Scriptures don’t make clear – specifically how precisely baptism relates to the process of salvation. Despite his desire to be strictly Biblical (a quality I certainly admire) he is still holding to presuppositions that affect his interpretation of Scripture.

Lutheran View: Robert Kolb

I put this view last even though it’s third in the book because it’s similar to other views, and I felt concerns were addressed better there. To be frank I agreed with very little in this section and I feel Kolb made similar mistakes as Reformed and Christian Churches. To summarize, their view of baptism is closer to Christian Churches in that they tie it very closely with salvation, but they also baptize infants (for some reasons similar to Reformed but still different because of how they connect it with salvation). One big difference between Lutheran and Reformed is that the latter leaves mystery and Lutherans try too hard to define what actually happens in baptism. In tying baptism and salvation so closely, they also blur the line between justification and human response/faith/works (also the same mistake as Christian Churches). In light of this, the fact that they baptize infants rather blows my mind and brings to the surface even more concerns than one might have with the Reformed view of infant baptism.

 Conclusion:

I would definitely recommend reading this book if you are studying baptism as it very well lays out the four main views that are out there. There are, however, more than four views. Beside another major view like Anglicanism or the various views within some Presbyterian or Methodist circles, I myself would consider myself a “Reformed Baptist” – a hybrid between the Reformed and Baptist (with some appreciation for Christian Churches as well in how seriously they take baptism). I have a higher/sacramental view of baptism (very close to Reformed, not quite as extreme as Christian Churches view), but am firmly convinced of believers-only baptism. Furthermore, I see water baptism as a sacrament of the Church that signifies and seals the work of Christ in the believer. It is not to be confused (or fused) with justification (one being made right with God) but is nevertheless a crucial part of the “process of salvation”. In the sense that you can say that “faith saves” you can also say that “baptism saves” but we also need to be careful to qualify that. Baptism is not necessary for entrance into heaven (only justification does that) but is required for a person who professes Christ to be accepted into the Church/be recognized as a Christian (I personally would add that a believer should be baptized prior to participating in the Lord's Supper as well). And obviously, if a professor refuses to be baptized that is a sign that they are not saved since they are refusing a very clear command of Christ. There is a sense in which a believer prior to baptism does “lack” something, much like a couple prior to the marriage ceremony but with their marriage license still lacks something to make their marriage “official”. What exactly baptism does or what grace it bestows is more of a mystery, but we must not try to define things that Scripture leaves as a Divine mystery. To put it simply: We are justified by grace through faith alone (Romans 3-5 & Ephesians 2), but baptism is a such crucial element to our status and walk with God that to be really Biblical, one cannot fully be recognized as a “true Christian” without it. 

 

FOR FURTHER STUDY: Please see THIS POST on Scripture texts and more on baptism (and at the bottom of that post there is a further study/resource list if you want to study/read more on the subject).