Expert: Rev. Stuart Woodward - 5/18/2011

Question
QUESTION: Hello, I am a 21 year old male who is a member of the church of Christ. However, I am not a Campbellite, please do not refer to me as one. But, with that being said, I have a few questions on baptism that I would like to ask your thoughts on.
But, by way of introduction let me state that I do not believe baptism alone outside of hearing, believing, repenting, and confessing will save a man. Too often people accuse the church of Christ of teaching so. We do not do that at all. We agree with all the verses that teach on faith saving. However, we agree with the ones that mandate baptism also. We simply believe that these 2 sets of verses are required in final salvation of a man's soul. With that being said my first question is why do certain religious groups teach that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 means because of? If you would look at the word usage there Peter uses and to join those 2 actions, and to give equality to the 2. This gives them equality and means that they have to occur for the same purpose.The word and makes them have to be one idea. And, indeed they are 2 actions with one purpose. And, that being, to remit one's sins. But, with that being said if for there does mean because sins have been forgiven then a man repents and is baptized because sins have been forgiven. The 2 actions HAVE TO be for the same purpose due to that grammar. Also in Matthew 26:28 Jesus said this is my blood which is shed for many FOR the remission of sins. Did Jesus shed his blood because sins had been forgiven? Absolutely not! If for there did mean because of there are 2 possibilities: 1) A man repents and is baptized BOTH because his sins have already been forgiven or 2) A man repents and is baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? The 2 actions have to be for the same purpose.
Question #2 in Greek grammar an Arish participle can NEVER occur after the lead verb. In Mark 16:16 the Arish participles are believeth and is baptized, the lead verb is shall be saved. That simple grammar rule means that belief AND baptism have to occur BEFORE salvation can occur NOT AFTER. Also, people say the 2nd part of Mark 16:16 is what's the key meaning. First off, Jesus mandated 2 things for salvation: believing and baptism. If one does not do what Jesus says to do to be saved he is damned to hell. But Jesus did say that he that is baptized shall be damned. Need proof? In verse 15 he said to preach the gospel to every creature then (verse 16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. Believes not what? The clear answer is the gospel of Christ. We all will agree with that. But in Acts 8:35-36 we see that Philip preached CHRIST to the eunuch. Right after he did the eunuch said here's water, what doth hinder me from being baptized? You see, part of preaching Christ IS baptism. If you teach the whole gospel of Christ, you have to teach baptism, that's part of the gospel. So back in Mark 16:16 he that believeth not (the gospel, which contains baptism) shall be damned. It's that simple. My question is why do people argue this verse when the simple grammar rule states that belief and baptism HAVE TO occur before salvation? WHy do people argue otherwise?
Question #3. Why do people argue you can be saved BEFORE baptism? By arguing that you would have to argue that you can be saved before you are in Christ. According to Galatians 3:26-27 baptism is what puts us into Christ. So until we are put into Christ (which is done BY baptism NOT BEFORE) we are lost, correct? We cannot be saved outside of Christ. We are put into Christ by baptism, not by belief alone. Therefore, one CANNOT be saved before he is baptized. If one can be saved before he's baptized he can be saved before he's in Christ. And that's impossible.
Question #4 why do people assume calling on the name of the Lord means the sinner's prayer? In Luke 23:39-43 we see the thief on the cross but there's problems there. #1 He lived under the Old Covenant not the New, baptism wasn't required under the old but it is under the New (see Hebrews 8 and 9 to prove the difference in the 2 covenants). #2 The thief was forgiven. If Christ were still here today, we could be forgiven of sin without doing anything at all. While Jesus was on earth he had that power. But now that he's gone, we have his commandments to obey to know how to be saved. #3 The thief more than likely had been baptized already. John preached the kingdom was at hand and also baptism for the repentance and remission of sins. That's what the thief knew, the evidence points to that he had been baptized already. With that being said the thief on the cross IS NOT the sinner's prayer. Jews were born into a covenant relationship with God. With that being said Luke 18 is not the sinner's prayer. That man was born into a covenant relationship with God. So why do people argue by these examples that calling on the name of the Lord is a simple prayer? Compare Mark 16:16 to Acts 2:21. They have the same common result: a man or men being saved. They have 2 different wordings though: Mark 16:16 says believe and be baptized Acts 2:21 says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord. If A=B and B=C then C has to equal A. Calling on the name of the Lord= salvation. Believing and baptism= salvation. Therefore, calling on the name of the Lord IS believing and being baptized. IT IS NOT SAYING A PRAYER. That's not found anywhere in the scriptures at all. When you get to Acts 22:16 if you diagram that you'll see that calling on the name of the Lord MODIFY baptism. The person that has been baptized (as the final step of salvation) HAS CALLED UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, NOT BEFORE HIS BAPTISM. Calling on the name of the Lord is being submissive to God and doing whatever he says to do to be saved.
I look forward to hearing your response to these questions. I hope you have a great day sir. God bless you, Heath Lindley

ANSWER: Hello Heath and thank you for your question. I was tempted to press the button on my response page to say the question was too long for me to try to answer and then tempted to press the button to say the question was outside my realm of expertise. However, I would like to make some response but I fear you will not be satisfied with it as it will not address all the issues you raise both because I do not have time and because I am no expert in Greek linguistics but a working Pastor in a local church.
I am English and minister in England where the Church of Christ, if it exists as a denomination, it is so small that I have not encountered it. The questions you raise are simply not live issues in England so I have never been asked to address them in the terms you describe them.
Having said all this I must point out that I believe passionately in the principal of believers' baptism by immersion and would be prepared to give my life for the principle. It has been wrongly marginalised and relegated to a secondary matter in too many churches.
You obviously enjoy a good debate so let me pick you up on a couple of points. First the idea that the thief on the cross had likely undergone John' s
baptism is an argument based on silence. There is no evidence for it and therefore can only be seen as speculation at best. Secondly if you believe that salvation comes through believing and being baptised I feel you are missing something fundamental. Christian theology should always be based on the whole of the New Testament, not simply one or two 'proof texts'. The New Testament is clear that salvation is by grace. There is no significant mention of this in your questions. The way in which we are to appropriate that grace is by faith and, I believe, that faith is meant to be expressed through baptism. However, there is a significant danger that we make baptism into a work we must do to be saved rather than an obedient response the gift God offers. Similarly, the sinner's prayer can be made into a mechanism that undervalues grace and exalts the human action.
I have no desire to down play the importance of baptism but I also refuse to allow it to undermine the principle of salvation by grace alone. I therefore choose to tell people that the right obedient response to the Gospel is personal faith expressed in baptism but I will leave to God the judgement of an individual who may disagree with me.
I was brought up in the Salvation Army who do not baptise at all. I knew the Lord in deep personal relationship before I was baptised as did my parents. I came later to a deep conviction that baptism was right and was baptised. Both my parents were baptised as Salvation Army officers around the same time. Even though I am deeply convinced of the importance of baptism I still know that before I was baptised I was born again and a child of God.
It may well be that your analysis of the texts you mention is totally accurate, though I suspect some more scholarly than me might want to argue otherwise. I would simply encourage you to look at a fuller picture of the centrality of grace. In the context off their day the Pharisees had most of their doctrine right but it became a prison of legalism that blinded them to grace. Those dangers are still real.
I see you are from Tennessee. I have had two wonderful vacations in the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee. You are blessed to live where you do. May God bless you richly and lead you in all His ways. I hope these comments are helpful and I apologise that my level of expertise is not sufficient to respond more fully
Stuart Woodward

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for your response. The only problem is that you are saying baptism is a work that man came up with. Or, in light of Ephesians 2:8-9 you would have to say that it is. Because the works there are man made works NOT those done in obedience to God. You have overlooken the fact that I made to avoid the issue you put me in. I DO NOT BELIEVE BAPTISMAL REGENERATION!!! I believe that baptism MUST be done ALONG WITH hearing, believing, repenting, and confession for it to do any good. I have done the steps that you have said save a man, I didn't feel a thing. I did them out of honesty. Then I was baptized that's when I felt saved not before. Preaching baptism is the final step of the plan of salvation DOES NOT take grace out of the plan of salvation. That's what people do not understand. God's grace is a gift but we have to do something to get it. If you disagree with this don't say the sinner's prayer, don't repent of your sins, don't accept Christ as you Lord and personal Savior because those are works that we do FOR OURSELVES. Those are works we do to obtain our salvation, God doesn't do those for us. But does that knock out God's grace? Absolutely not. God's grace is His side of salvation, we cannot do those for ourselves. However, there is a part we must do also in order to be saved. Baptism is NOT a work anymore than the sinner's prayer is. Baptism IS found in the Bible the Sinner's Prayer IS NOT. So, the sinner's prayer is a work MORE than baptism IS!!! The conclusion is this salvation is by God's grace. But, God puts conditions man MUST DO to obtain his grace and salvation. Baptism DOES NOT limit God's grace, it is simply an act done IN OBEDIENCE to what God says. If baptism limits or eliminates God's grace and salvation being through grace why did the Son of God himself say, "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved?" Does baptism take away from grace or is baptism a "work"? The Son of God didn't think so. It is an insult to Jesus Christ to argue we are saved by grace alone WHEN HE HIMSELF SAID A MAN MUST BELIEVE AND BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED!!! That's not me talking that's THE SAVIOR TALKING! Why do so many argue with Him and not simply accept what he says? Jesus didn't say believe pray the sinner's prayer and accept me as your Lord and Person Savior here nor in John 3:5. These are the only 2 accounts where He directly tells man what to do to be saved and He mentions baptism BOTH times as being necessary to obtain salvation? Jesus HIMSELF MANDATED BAPTISM AS NECESSARY FOR A MAN TO OBTAIN SALVATION. Why argue with Him? Why not just accept what he says?

Answer
Thank you Heath for your follow up. I did not expect you to agree with me. These are issues you feel very strongly about and I respect you for that. We are much closer together theologically than our exchanges seem to suggest. I do proclaim baptism as an integral part of salvation along with repentance, personal faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I was not accusing you of believing in baptismal regeneration, nor was I saying that baptism is a 'work', rather that it could become one if it implied that by being baptised we were somehow earning our salvation.
You say that you 'felt saved' when you were baptised. Yet I felt saved long before I was baptised. These are different experiences and simply reflect the fact that 'feeling saved' cannot be the central matter thought the witness of the Spirit is important.
I encourage you to contact one of the other experts, perhaps one who is more able at an academic level to enter into the debate with you about the meaning of Greek words.
May God bless you.
Stuart Woodward