How do we deal with the fact that Paul wrote—
(1 Cor. 1:17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For all the many scriptures that support the traditional position of the Churches of Christ, there is no explaining this passage in light of what we’ve traditionally taught. How can the greatest evangelist in history say — by inspiration — that Jesus did not send him to baptize?
Don’t we send our missionaries out to baptize? Don’t we expect reports from them as to numbers of baptisms? Can you imagine a Church of Christ missionary saying that he wasn’t sent to baptize?
I’ve always rationalized this by saying that Paul was following Jesus’ example of doing the baptizing himself, letting his disciples perform the immersions (John 4:2). But if Jesus had his apostles baptizing in Palestine, then why would the apostle Paul not baptize in Corinth? Paul would never pretend to be Jesus!
And, of course, Paul did baptize some within Corinth, just very few, while Jesus baptized none. This argument just doesn’t add up. Indeed, we read of other apostles baptizing in great numbers at Pentecost.
Plainly, Paul’s point is that baptism is secondary to faith. Indeed, Paul speaks of “faith,” “belief,” or variants, 187 times to just 16 references to “baptism,” or variants (“faith” and “belief” translate the same Greek word). Does our literature and do our sermons reflect the same relative emphases? Why not?
Paul did not preach baptism — he preached “Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Faith is thus faith in Christ, not in baptism. The gospel is the “gospel of Christ” (for example, 1 Cor. 9:12), not the gospel of baptism. We are to convert to Jesus, not to baptism.
Somehow, in our zeal to preach the doctrine of baptism, we’ve sometimes lost our priorities. But this no more means that we should ignore baptism than that Paul did. Paul clearly saw to it that his converts were baptized. He just made sure that they were converted to a person, not a doctrine or a rite.
It’s worth noting that although Paul regularly mentions baptism in his writings, it is almost always as an incidental. He uses baptism to make another point, that is, the point is never baptism. All his references to baptism are in support of other arguments.
It would be a mistake to trivialize baptism. Clearly, Paul saw baptism as an important part of this teaching. But it would be an even bigger mistake to imagine that baptism is co-equal with faith in Jesus in Paul’s theology. Plainly, it is not. Indeed, in 1 Cor. 1:16, Paul plainly contrasts the gospel with baptism. They are not the same thing.
The example of Jesus’ healing
A very familiar story is told in Matthew:
(Matt. 9:1-8) Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . .”
Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Jesus was asked to heal the paralyzed man, but he forgave him even though he wasn’t asked to do so! The men asked for less than Jesus was willing to give, and yet Jesus gave what was needed. This is the nature of our Savior. He does not give begrudgingly to those who approach him with faith.
(Eph 3:12) In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.
(Heb 4:16) Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Why do we suppose that a Baptist who asks to join the church, the body of Christ, with a saving faith and penitent heart but ignorant of the true purpose of baptism, will be denied his greatest need by a loving, gracious Savior? Why imagine that a Savior anxious to forgive will fail to do so when a faithful man or woman fails to use enough water in the baptismal ceremony? This is the same Savior who forgives the faithful who don’t even ask for forgiveness!
The believer’s wedding ceremony?
It has often been argued that baptism is analogous to a wedding. While certainly the essence of a marriage is the commitment made between husband and wife, no matter how committed they are to each other, they’re just not married until they participate in a wedding. They might live together, have sexual relations, bear children, and take on all the appearances of a married couple, but with no wedding, they are not married.
To extend the analogy, it is further argued that a wedding is, like a baptism, a symbol. The wedding ceremony symbolizes the joining of man and woman to become united, one flesh, as Moses wrote in Genesis 2. The ceremony symbolizes the love of the bride and the groom. And, of course, a traditional church wedding is filled with a great many more symbols.
Thus, although it is true that a wedding is a symbol, it is also the occasion at which the marriage actually occurs. It is much more than just a symbol — it actually effects a change in the relationship between the bride and groom — indeed, the relationship between the bride, the groom, and God himself.
And, as is true of baptism, it is not just the ceremony that makes the marriage. The bride and groom must come to the wedding intending to be married. With no intention to be married, the ceremony is a fraud and the marriage is not recognized. For example, many marriages have been annulled (declared to have never occurred) when the parties were too drunk to truly consent to the marriage.
Thus, just as Peter said that baptism saves, not the water but the pledge of a good conscience to God, a wedding marries — not the preacher saying the words, but the pledge of a man and woman to be husband and wife to each other. But even so, a wedding requires the words by the preacher or the judge, just as salvation requires the immersion, even though the essence of the event is the commitment being made, in faith, to God.
This is a powerful argument. It is also wrong.
To see why, we need to learn something more about marriage, because the way we see marriage today is not the way the authors of the Bible saw marriage. Today, we typically think the way a man and woman get married is by being married by a preacher or a judge. Somehow, we’ve taken on the idea that marriage requires the approval of the government.
In fact, in my home town, preachers typically conclude the ceremony by saying something like, “By the powers vested in me by God and the State of Alabama, I now pronounce you man and wife.” But, of course, although the Code of Alabama authorizes church officials to officiate at weddings, nowhere does the Bible do so.
Think about it. Isn’t this rather a strange notion? Why should the government have to approve an otherwise extremely private arrangement? And when and how did this start? The answer may surprise you.
Nowhere in the Bible do we read about people getting governmental consent to a wedding. We don’t read about preachers — or rabbis — marrying people. Adam and Eve were husband and wife and had no wedding. The next marriage we read about is Isaac and Rachel —
(Gen. 24:67 KJV) And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took16 Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
The marriage of Jacob and Leah was similarly accomplished:
(Gen. 29:21-23) Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her.” So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her.
In both Old Testament and New Testament times, marriage was accomplished without government or church involvement. The details might vary based on local customs, but getting married meant simply agreeing to be married. No license. No blood tests. No preacher. And no judge. And this didn’t change until after the time of Constantine — hundreds of years after Christ.
In fact, it was well into the Middle Ages that the church (not the government) usurped the couple’s exclusive authority to make a marriage — as a sacrament. Indeed, by the time of the Counter-Reformation, the Council of Trent declared that any marriage not made by the church (by then, the Roman Catholic Church) was void and adulterous.
As a result of the Protestant Reformation, many governments (including England’s) rejected the notion that only the church could marry a couple, and so judges were granted the power to marry couples in many lands.
The United States borrowed this practice from England. But England did not limit the power to grant marriage to the church and to judges — England also allowed couples to marry purely by private agreement, as had been true going all the way back to Adam and Eve. This is known as a common law marriage.
In the United States, many states no longer recognize common law marriages because of the practical problems they create in proving who is married to whom. The states want a good, certain record of marriages to better enforce inheritance and divorce laws.
But several states, including my home state of Alabama, still recognize common law marriages. In such states, there is nothing immoral or illegal in marrying under the common law. All that is required is a mutual intent to be presently married which intent is objectively evidenced by the couple holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife. Period. Just like Isaac and Rachel.
Some have been confused and thought that having sexual relations alone makes a marriage, but the law (and Biblical principle) is that the marriage comes from an intent to be married, and sex is only possible evidence of the intent. Consummation is not essential to a common law marriage.
Moreover, it’s worth noting that many state statutes don’t actually give the minister or judge the power the marry. Rather, the traditional terminology is that the minister or judge may only “solemnize” the marriage, meaning, formally declare that the marriage has occurred!
And so, where does this leave us with respect to baptism? Well, in the ordinary course, baptism really is just like a wedding ceremony. It’s a symbol and it is much more than a symbol — it is the actual occasion where salvation occurs, just as a wedding really is the actual occasion where marriage occurs.
But what happens if the husband and wife make a technical mistake? What if they forgot to buy a marriage license? What if they don’t realize that their preacher isn’t ordained in the state they are getting married in? What if they didn’t have the number of witnesses required by state law? What if they failed to sign the license and mail it to the Bureau of Vital Statistics?
Are they still married? Yes! In fact, they are still married even if all they did is pledge their hearts to one another to be married and then undertook to really live as husband and wife. Legally. Morally. And in God’s eyes. They are just as married as if married by 20 preachers before 1,000 witnesses.
So what do we learn from the wedding analogy? If the analogy holds at all, it teaches us that baptism should be and often is both a symbol of our salvation and the very occasion of our salvation. And just as no one would prudently recommend getting married without a license, witnesses, and so on, seeking salvation outside a proper baptism is foolhardy.
But if someone were to make an honest error in how to commit himself to God, the pledge of the heart to God by a faithful, penitent man or woman is enough. But I’d add, if a married couple came to my congregation, married at common law, I’d ask them to be remarried with a license and the whole works — because to do otherwise would leave them open to tremendous uncertainty in many respects. It’s just good practice to do things the best way possible. I’ve seen many a miserable widow struggle to prove her common law marriage after her husband died.
"For all the many scriptures that support the traditional position of the Churches of Christ, there is no explaining this passage in light of what we’ve traditionally taught. How can the greatest evangelist in history say — by inspiration — that Jesus did not send him to baptize?" (Jay)
LOL! Your opinion here shows you need to read the Bible more frequent, and more carefully. It is a common Biblical mode of speech. It is also one that you will frequently see me employing, whether on purpose or by accident. Jesus said in John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Yet, the Pharisees catch him in John 8:13 bearing witness of himself! Is Jesus, therefore, a liar? The Pharisees say to him "Thou bearest record of thyself; [ergo,] thy record is not true." But Jesus answers, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true…I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:14-18) It is made clear, then, that when he said "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" he intended men with any literacy whatsoever to understand an ellipsis, that is, "If I [ALONE] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." It is abundantly clear, in the same vein, from the great commission and from the fact that Paul did in fact baptize, that when Paul says "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" that he also assumes that we are literate enough to understand that he means "Christ sent me not to baptize [merely], but to preach the gospel [primarily]:" It is also confirmed by context, since in the context he admits to having baptized some. Did he assume this authority for himself without being sent? No. His point is merely that he is glad he did not baptize everyone but that others baptized the great bulk, because he feared that some of the partisans who said "I follow Paul" might say he had baptized in his own name. Now, this form of speech is all over the New Testament, and without exercising ourselves in understanding the New Testament's peculiar modes of speech through constant reading thereof, we will fall into all sorts of absurdities as you do above.
Josh,
You write: "Did he assume this [baptismal] authority for himself without being sent?"
Where in the New Testament is it suggested that one needs specific authorization to baptize? I would like to study this passage that would establish a professional clergy.
You write: “Christ sent me not to baptize [merely], but to preach the gospel [primarily]:”
Let's assume for present purposes that your statement is correct. Where do we find authorization to preach baptism AS IF IT WERE the gospel?
The fact remains that baptism is our primary goal and concern in churches of Christ, and Pauls words here boldly state (and you affirm) that baptism was NOT his primary goal.
Nick,
The problem Paul is addressing is a problem of preachers and personalities. People were placing great importance on who had baptized them. We see it today; people like to mention that they were baptized by some big name preacher.
Paul doesn't say, "Christ didn't send me to preach baptism." He says, "Christ didn't send me to baptize." It's not his teaching, it's the physical act he's referring to. When people responded to his preaching, Paul didn't feel the need to be the one to actually put them under the water. In fact, in many cases it was better for someone else to do it.
I won't deny an undue emphasis in our fellowship on baptism by itself, rather than baptism within an entire faith response. But that's our problem, not the Corinthians' problem. Theirs was a problem of factions and "preacher-itis."
Grace and peace,
Tim
The focus on baptism does not displace the gospel as it is an audience thing. If I'm preaching to a heathen, I will preach primarily the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and baptism will come in its proper place. But when I preach to a Baptist or Presbyterian who supposedly already believes in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (or to those supposedly in the church of Christ whose hobby is to attack baptism), then I will correct them on baptism and it will be the main focus kinda but not really. The main focus even here is Christ's sacrifice and the only reason baptism ids so important is its connection to that sacrifice. It is where we put on Christ, get into Christ, etc. Its importance to accessing the sacrifice of Christ is why it can't be ignored and why we can't allow that it be trivialized.
In other words, you can blame yourselves and the denominations for the emphasis on baptism. If everyone would accept the truth on the matter it would get less attention. Teachers natural tend to preach more often on the subjects that are most under attack, which is why you will hear more sermons on baptism and communion than on the deity of Christ. I would guesstimate that over 95% of all denominations accept the divinity of Christ, so people are shocked when they meet an Arian. Consequently, you might hear one or two sermons a year on that topic. But since certain people, many of whom are on this blog, like to attack baptism, baptism gets preached on more. If you don't like hearing about baptism all the time, the solution is to stop attacking it and convince all your buddies in the denominations to stop attacking it, and then faithful brethren won't have to defend it anymore and you won't have to hear about it except one or twice a year.
Josh-
I have been in some of the most progressive churches in our fellowship and have worked in some of them and I have never once heard or read anyone attack baptism. You presume too much. Instead the ones who you believe are attacking baptism are the ones helping us come to a healthier view of it. I know, though, that you will not be convinced of anything I say. You have made your mind up and I know I am talking to a one whose heart is hardened on this subject.
Don't be so sure whose heart is hardened, Kent. After all, who is on God's side here and who is waging a war of human merits against him? Isn't that your argument, that those poor people who were baptized wrong deserve salvation because their hearts are right? It's works salvation and a half. But my position is 100% to the glory of God. I'm even saying that when a person is baptized properly that God is behind it, because he is working all things to the good of those who he has called.
Josh-
You kinda made my point with your reply. I don't know you personally. I am sure that you are a fine Christian gentleman. It's just that I read through the threads and read your comments and the comments of others and you come off as one who is unwilling to consider any opinion other than your own. I come to a site like Jay's to learn and to grow. I believe I know the truth of Jesus Christ but I am not so arrogant as to believe I have everything figured out perfectly. I try and leave room for growth. Spiritual transformation is a very Biblical idea when you read the New Testament. So, I do apologize for calling you "hard-hearted". I shouldn't have done that. But I find your approach disturbing as well as the approach of other conservative thinkers like yourself. You have to defend, defend, defend and fight your position to the death it seems because if you are proven to be wrong on something then your entire faith is put in jeopardy. That's a dangerous line to walk.
As you think I make your point, so also you make mine. Jay's view is essentially that people who haven't submitted to the gospel deserve or merit salvation by their hearts. In other words, it is a system of human merit. Rather than believing that God will save his elect and do so in the way he has revealed, you would rather believe that men can save themselves by having a good heart. That's your business, but please wake up to the irony of it.
Josh-
I just don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Let me state that I do not agree with those who simply want to "invite Jesus into their hearts" in order to be saved and leave baptism out altogether. That is wrong. However, I also believe that God is able to make exceptions in different cases. To me, I am not prepared to limit God in any way. He can do what he wants when he wants. I just wonder if your view, while not entirely wrong, doesn't limit God. Just a thought.
"However, I also believe that God is able to make exceptions in different cases."
But why would he ever be in a situation where he would be forced to make an exception contrary to his word? He is God after all. Look at the conversion of Cornelius. He made an exception, but one that was wholly consonant with his word and not one wit contrary to it. Think about it carefully. God sent an angel to tell him to call for Simon Peter by name and told him that Peter would tell him words whereby he and his house would be saved. Did God just say, "Well, Cornelius is a good guys, so I'll just excuse his ignorance"? No, but he did something spectacular to get the knowledge that Cornelius needed to Cornelius. This is God's way of making exceptions. Again, look at Paul. Did God leave Paul to linger in ignorance and say "Paul's got a good heart, so I'll just sneak him into heaven in the end"? No, but Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and told him to go into the city and there he would be told what he must do. And then the Spirit send Ananias to tell Paul what he must do, and 3 days later Ananias comes and tells him what to do. But what is it? "Get up and be baptized as a mere sign of salvation you already received"? No. "Be baptized merely 'to obey God'"? No. "Get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away calling on the name of the Lord." See how God does not leave Paul in ignorance? See how he gives him the knowledge he needs? It is my contention that this is God's mode of making exceptions, if we will have them called exceptions. But I would rather not call them exceptions at all, because God is not under constraint to work within time merely, but has already been working in eternity past to the salvation of those who will be saved, as Paul speaks of in Romans 8:28-31. It was no coincident or last minute decision that God sent that angel to Cornelius or that he appeared to Paul and then arranged for Ananias to preach to him–it was all planned by God before hand. This notion of a haphazard God responding merely to the here and now, having no plan whatsoever but just kinda "Oh, I just now notice this guy named Joe. He's a good guy, so I suppose I'll make an exception and save him." That is not the Biblical teaching of what salvation is. If God will save this Joe, then God has planned on getting the truth to him already and will do it–he will not haphazardly save him in ignorance of the truth.
And again, the 12 men in Acts 19 who had been baptized wrong. Was it just a coincidence or happinstance or just dumb luck that they chanced upon Paul and he rebaptized them? Or had God planned their bumping into Paul beforehand to their salvation? You will note here, that God did not make the sort of exception that is being lobbying for on this blog. God did not say "Well, these 12 guys are good guys, so although they were baptized wrong I will save them in their ignorance." No, but rather he arranged things in his providence to where they would chance upon Paul and be instructed more perfectly, and rebaptized! Isn't that amazing? What an amazing God we have! Now, if someone dies wrongly baptized, I can't say "well, God will just over look it." I can say, rather than God works all things out to the good of those whom he has called, and clearly this man was not called. But these 12 were, since God worked all things to their good.
My only point was that I do not, in my language, or in my belief, or in anything, want to limit God. Like I said, I believe in baptism wholeheartedly. I think, if anything, we need more teaching on baptism and on salvation and on sin. And, like I said, I would very much be what you, Josh, would consider a progressive, and those who I associate with believe in and teach baptism as well. I think the difference comes in how we view God. I want to be open to God working in my life and in the world and I do not want to limit him in any way. I do not know if I can say the same for you.
"My only point was that I do not, in my language, or in my belief, or in anything, want to limit God."
And my point, whether you realize it or not, is that you are limiting God in time. Viewing God as being acted upon and responding in temporal fashion. What seems to you to be a limitation is his eternal purpose. It is in fact the opposite of limitation. If God were ever able to be put in the spot where he had to ask himself "Should I break my word to save this guy?" then would he be limited. And that is the spot that Jay is saying that God is CONSTANTLY in. What a boxed up and caged in God. But God can truly never be in that situation since he has an eternal purpose that he is fulfilling and is not living in mortal time and responding in time according to the laws of temporal physics. God's purpose to save me precedes me. I am not the initiator of salvation, and therefore God is not merely responding to what I do and determining whether he will save me or not. I am the one in time, God is not. When you talk of God making exceptions you lower him and cease to conceive of him as the one who declares "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isa 46:10) Instead you cage him up in the universe and bind him with a fixed temporal spot. The point is that the "all my pleasure" that he speaks of is not changing nor unfixed, but was determined by him of old. To say, therefore, that he has not so worked providence in favor of his elect so as that they will obey his gospel and not a false gospel, is to make for yourself a new god.