Matt Slick on Baptism: A Lutheran Response, Part I.

Matt Slick, a popular Christian internet figure, is the head honcho at CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry). Matt is, to sum it up the best I can, a Calvinistic Baptist with some Charismatic leanings. So, he certainly is not a Lutheran. However, he is quite well respected in the Christian sphere online.

Matt Slick

There are indeed numerous good things about CARM and Matt Slick. However, this article on Baptism is not one of them.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I plan to address his article in a few blog posts. Hopefully I can keep them short and concise. I aim for clarity here. Quotes from Matt's article will be in italics throughout the rest of the blog post.

"One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No, water baptism is not necessary for salvation." "

Matt begins his article by proposing this simple question: Is baptism necessary for salvation? From the outset we have a pretty loaded -and difficult- question to deal with. The rest of Matt's article addresses this question. He tries really hard to deal with it faithfully, I'll give him that. The problem is, as I see it, is that he tries to cram this question into a perfect little logical box and ends up denying the plain reading of numerous Scriptures in the process.

"But for now, the reason baptism is not necessary for salvation is that we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11).  You see, a religious ceremony is a set of activities or forms peformed by someone."

OK, in a real sense he has a point here. Baptism is indeed a ceremony performed by someone. Yet, in another real sense, there are some fundamental misunderstandings of Christianity here and some other odd inconsistencies.

First of all, baptism is not an addition to faith. The bible nowhere says this. Search for it, nowhere in Holy Scripture will you ever find this idea. To put it in simple terms, to say that baptism is adding something to faith (a work), then you also have to say that grace is adding something to faith (a work). Knowing that Matt is a Calvinistic man, he would never assert the latter, but he does assert the former. Scripture tells us bluntly that grace is not works (Rom 11:6).

Ultimately, to pit baptism against faith is to pit 2 of the Reformation solas against each other: Grace alone and faith alone. You don't do that.

The deeper question here that is unanswered by Matt is: "How is grace given to us?" Are there natural means? Or is grace given by the Spirit working apart from means? Clearly from Matt's article, baptism is not a means of grace. If it were, he could not make the claims he is making.

"Likewise, baptism is also a ceremony where one person performs a religious rite on another person; but, we are saved by faith alone, and anything else we do, including ceremonies, will not help."

No, a ceremony in itself helps nothing. I get that, and no Confessional Lutheran would ever disagree. However, is Matt also willing to go further and say that the preaching of the Gospel in church is also a ceremony that does not help? In the interest of consistency I would hope he would actually deny that preaching the Gospel is a means of grace. The problem is, once you deny natural means of grace (preaching the Gospel is one of those), you've pretty much denied means of grace altogether and this makes the Gospel irrelevant, since God can and would save people apart from the means of grace. This is a common error of some really Hyper Calvinists (Matt is not one), and ultimately is a degeneration to Gnosticism in a sense that separates the spiritual from the natural. Spirit good, natural bad. So goes Gnosticism.

So, how is this grace given to us? I assert on Scriptural grounds that there are very few sure ways that God gives grace, and they are all natural means. This is not to say that God cannot extend grace in other ways or however He would like to. It is to say that He has given us sure promises in the Word as to where and how that grace is given to us.

In short, Christ's work is the source of all grace, and the Word works that faith in us, because the Word is a means of grace. That Word is given to us not only by the natural means of preaching (sound waves that we hear audibly) and reading Scripture (light waves that hit our eyes visibly), but also in Baptism (water), Holy Absolution (see John 20...sound waves again), and Holy Communion (bread and wine).

Grace given by the Word alone does not mean that grace is only given by preaching and reading the Holy Scriptures. After all, the Word is Christ and the Scriptures give us Him. So does Baptism, Absolution, and the Lord's Supper.

The other problem Matt has here is that (along with the majority of Baptists) he does have a robust doctrine of the office of the ministry. In other words, Christ instituted an office of the ministry to disperse His good gifts and promises to the world. (John 20, again) Thus, when a pastor preaches Christ crucified, it is no more a work than Baptism or the Lord's Supper, or the pronouncement of forgiveness. The Holy Spirit works through these means. God uses the natural world to save the natural world. He gives us completely objective promises visibly, audibly, and on our heads and in our mouths.

"If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith."

This is a misunderstanding of grace and also in a sense, faith. Here Matt has erected a false dichotomy that pits baptism against faith; which as I mentioned above, is a pitting of grace against faith. Matt is saying that if baptism is necessary for salvation, then salvation is faith + baptism, and that violates sola fide. (justification by faith alone)

But this is backwards, since baptism is grace. It's not something we add to faith in addition to it. Rather, it is something that is for faith. It gives it and works it in us. (Col 2:12) I am not going to say much more here because I wrote another blog on this a long time ago, found here: Baptism and Sola Fide

"Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins,  etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died." 

This is a drastic oversimplification of the question at hand. Matt claims that a person can receive Christ and then die on their way to being baptized. This doesn't answer the question though. Ultimately all he has proven is that baptism is not absolutely necessary in all circumstances to be saved. The thief on the cross is a prime example of this. He is pigeon-holing the question into a very narrow box when ultimately the question at hand is far more nuanced than this.

But this does not prove that baptism does not regenerate and save, especially when Scripture plainly says it does. What it does prove is that hearing the preached Word and receiving Christ is also a means of grace, which I am sure Matt would affirm.

The LCMS site gives a good answer here:

"The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, Baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins." ( http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine)

Matt continues...

"This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved."

This plays right back into the preceding statement. We do not say that the person is not saved, but we likewise say that baptism now saves you. Why do we say that? Because St. Peter said that. Again, we're wrangling over the means of grace here.

"Now, in order to more thoroughly look at this issue, I need to lay a foundation of proper theology; and then I'll address some of those verses that are commonly used to support the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation."

And this is where I will wrap up this entry for the day. I will continue with Matt's "proper theology" next time.

+Grace and Peace+