Matt Slick on Baptism: A Lutheran Response, Part II

Today I continue my response to Matt Slick's article on the necessity of Baptism in salvation, found over at Matt's CARM (Christian Apologetics Research & Ministry) site.

Is Baptism Necessary? (From CARM, by Matt Slick)

I began my address to Matt's article yesterday and it can be found here: Lutheran Response to Matt Slick: Part I

Yesterday I addressed Matt's opening paragraph and hopefully showed the flaws that were inherent in his argumentation. Today, I plan to address the Scriptures he has posted as well as the theology is he promoting.

Matt begins his argument by laying the groundwork for a "proper theology," as he puts it. In essence, he argues for a robust baptistic covenant theology, and then goes to the Scriptures and interprets them in that light.

The problem as I see it is multi-faceted. First of all, not all covenants function in the same manner. This is evident from even a cursory browsing of the numerous covenants found in Scripture. So, to force a definition on the term covenant that is too narrow will not allow the interpreter to do justice to the biblical texts. Matt is in a sense doing this. He defines covenant this way:

"A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties."

Yes, true. But that definition doesn't quite give us the full range that is required in Scripture. Secondly, on what basis does Matt assume that covenant is the overarching theme in all of Scripture and that the Holy Scriptures should always be interpreted through this motif? I know a lot of Reformed people will argue that Scripture itself gives us this motif as the interpretive lens for all of Scripture, but I'm not so sure that is sustainable.

Anyways, all of that is not as relevant as the fact that the more obvious problem here is that Matt is laying a presupposed theology before he interprets the texts on baptism. In other words, he sees texts on baptism in the New Testament and pretty much says that they don't really mean what they sound like they mean.

He continues after his theological treatise on covenant to define what the Gospel is. He states:

"It is clearly the gospel that saves us, but what exactly is the gospel?  That too is revealed to us in the Bible.  It is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.  Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."  The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins."

Praise God, Matt has the Gospel right and is my Christian brother. But then his preconceived theology gets in the way again as he states:

"Baptism is not mentioned here."

He's right, it's not. But it certainly is in other places. And many of those other places directly connect baptism with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Matt immediately brings up 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. St. Paul states there, "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.  (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else). For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . . "

Then Matt proceeds to divorce St. Paul's statement from the direct context of the passage, saying,

 "If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation?  It is because baptism is not necessary for salvation."

To make that statement is to ignore the obvious here. People were believing that baptism is a big deal and actually does something. St. Paul is not downplaying baptism at all. He is saying that he is glad he did not baptize certain people so they could not argue that their baptism is better than someone else's because they were baptized by the Apostle Paul.

I am going to skip over the next few paragraphs of Matt's article and jump right to the Scriptures, mainly because I already addressed those issues that he is arguing. Thus, to the Word we go.

"But still, what about those verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation?  I will address those now; but because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact sufficient for a book in itself, I will only address a few verses and then only briefly."

Matt begins by quoting St. John 3:5: "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

"Some say that water here means baptism, but that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted...It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process."

So Matt sees St. John 3:5 as a reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb and argued this on the basis that Christian baptism had not been instituted yet. I addressed this topic here: Water Washing Baptism Spirit, so I will comment only briefly.

To put it short, I assert that water actually means water and Spirit is the Holy Spirit. So, the next obvious question is: Where in Christianity is there water and the Spirit in the same place at the same time? Oh yes, that's right, in Holy Baptism. Are there examples of water and the Spirit together in Baptism in the Scriptures? Indeed there are many of them. St. Luke 3:22, St. Matthew 28:19, Titus 3:5-7. In those passages, among others, water and Spirit are inextricably linked.

In short, Matt is saying that water cannot mean water here, precisely because it disagrees with his preconceived theology, which was laid *before* he went to the Scriptures. Second, it's quite irrelevant if Christian baptism was instituted yet or not, because Jesus could certainly be speaking about it anyways. This might be a poor example, but it's the same idea: Should we also interpret everything Jesus says about Him dying on the cross to be talking about something else too because He said it before He went to Calvary? Same sort of idea.

Next, Matt turns to Acts 2:38, which states:  "Peter replied, ‘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.‘"

He then proceeds to say,

"This verse is often used to say that baptism is part of salvation, but we know from other scriptures that it is not, lest there be a contradiction.  What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected."

The statement about contradictions is only true if you have a preconceived theology with which it does not fit, as Matt does. In short, he has to say this because of what he perceives baptism to be. If indeed baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality done by us out of obedience, it is in fact a work. But Scripture never tells us that anywhere. That's where this whole discussion and the whole article goes off the rails. He continues,

"In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized.  Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart.  That is why it says, "repent and be baptized."

In short, Matt is reading a specific order into the text here. He is saying that first is repentance, then only after true repentance, baptism. He even goes as far as to argue that repentance is the thing that is connected to forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit here; not baptism, even though the closest thing to forgiveness and the Spirit in the text is baptism.

I posit that St. Peter's sermon is not a literal order, but a connecting of the things. Baptism, repentance, forgiveness, the Spirit...well, they all go together. Furthermore, if one were to take Matt's strict literal ordering, one wonders why he won't apply it to the Great Commission as well? If he does, his whole theology is violated, as baptism must therefore precede teaching.

"Also, please notice that there is no mention of faith in Acts 2:38.  If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned?"

No, but in other texts faith is directly mentioned as being a result of baptism (i.e Col 2:12...baptism raises us in faith). Hence, baptism is grace, grace precedes faith and gives it to us, and grace is not a work. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 11:6)

So Matt's argument here that faith is not mentioned is a non-argument.

Next up is 1 Peter 3:21, which states, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

"Some think that the baptism corresponds to the Ark because it was the Ark that saved them--not the floodwaters.  This is a possibility, but one of the problems is that this interpretation does not seem to stand grammatically since the antecedent of Baptism is most probably in reference to the water--not the Ark. 

But, water did not save Noah.  This is why Peter excludes the issue of water baptism being the thing that saves us because he says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."  Peter says that it is not the application of water that saves us but a pledge of the good conscience.  Therefore, baptism here most probably represents the breaking away of the old sinful life and entrance into the new life with Christ--in the same way that the flood waters in Noah's time was the destruction of the sinful way and, once through it, known as entering into the new way.  Also, Peter says that the baptism is an appeal of a good conscience before God.  Notice that this is dealing with faith.  It seems that Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith."

Matt, Matt, Matt. Really? Baptism...now saves you. That is what the text says. Baptism saves us through water, just like the ark saved Noah and his family through water. Not by physically washing us, but by connecting us to Christ. Likewise, the word "pledge" in the NIV is an unfortunate translation. "Appeal" is much better. It's an appeal to God, and God grants that appeal through Christ and saves us through the water.

Matt's interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 is pretty shameful, to be honest. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you..." turns into "...Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith." How in the world does that even make sense? Can't we just read it and believe it? Goodness gracious!

Next Matt turns to Acts 22:16, which states, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." I mean, how much more clear can it be? And more commentary ensues, explaining why the text doesn't really mean what it says.

"Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already saved; or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)?  Obviously it is the blood of Jesus, and the washing here refers to the calling on Jesus' name."

And here is his explanation. I will say this first: OF COURSE it's the blood of Jesus that washes away sins. No one disputes that. But how is that blood of Christ given to us? By grace, right? How is grace given to us? There are specific means. Baptism is one of those means.

So the text says baptism washes away sins. Matt says the text doesn't say what it says. Come on bro.

Now it's Romans 6:3-4 time: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

"The figure of baptism represents the reality of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  It is a covenant sign for us.  Remember, a covenant sign represents the covenant.  The covenant sign of baptism represents the covenant of grace which is that covenant between God and the Christian where we receive the grace of God through the person of Christ by means of his sacrifice."

That however, is not what the text says. Matt backs up and reinterprets this plain text by his theology again. He claims that it represents Christ's work. But the text says that we are baptized *into* Christ's work. In other words, baptism gives Christ's work to us; connects us.

Now it's on to Titus 3:5: , "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

Matt comments,

"The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of Christ that cleanses us.  It is not the symbol that saves but the reality.  The reality is the blood of Christ."

Yeah, Christ's blood does indeed wash us. Agreed. But again, where in Christianity are water and the Spirit connected inseparably? Baptism. Where are we washed with water, given the Spirit, and connected to Christ? Baptism.

He then comments on Galatians 3:27: "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

"This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ.  It is an identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc.  In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses.  That means they were closely identified with him and his purpose.  The same thing is meant here."

Of course it is talking about our being united to Christ. But the text one-ups Matt again and says that this union comes about in Baptism.

I can't help but to think that Matt has to make every baptism passage in the New Testament that says anything salvific completely symbolic, figurative, and representative of something else. His theology simply will not allow him to speak plainly about baptism as Scripture does. I close with a quote from my friend Charles Wiese. He states:

"Every theological system has an explanation for every passage you throw at it. But I think a good practice when working through explanations is to ask if the person providing the explanation would ever say what the person in Scripture actually says. Would the guy at CARM really write a letter to someone in which he says "baptism now saves you"? Would he tell people to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins? Can the author of CARM explain what baptism is and does just using the Scriptural language without inserting words from his own theological tradition?" ~Charles Wiese

It has been shown that Matt Slick cannot speak plainly like the Scriptures do in these passages. He has to wrest them and wrangle them to fit his presupposed theology. Matt would never speak as St. Peter and Paul do regarding baptism, because Matt does not believe and teach the same thing that the Holy Scriptures teach about baptism. And while I believe Matt to be my brother in Christ, it's no small matter to get these things this wrong.

+Grace and Peace+