Grudem on the Necessity of Baptism

Luke Geraty —  January 5, 2013 — 6 Comments

Now I realize that the concept of Justification and Salvation and Baptism carry a lot of theological “baggage” because, depending upon the tradition you come from, those terms may mean different things. But as a convinced Reformed Protestant Baptistic Continuationist, I really like how Grudem summarizes the issue of the necessity of baptism. He writes,

“While we recognize that Jesus commanded baptism (Matt. 28:19), as did the apostles (Acts 2:38), we should not say that baptism is necessary for salvation. This question was discussed to some extent above under the response to the Roman Catholic view of baptism. To say that baptism or any other action is necessary for salvation is to say that we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith plus a certain “work,” the work of baptism. The apostle Paul would have opposed the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation just as strongly as he opposed the similar idea that circumcision was necessary for salvation (see Gal. 5:1–12).” (Systematic Theology, 981)


My only concern with this summary is how the terms “salvation” and “justification” seem to be linked a bit more than I think the NT warrants. Now I know where Grudem is coming from, and I agree, but I also want to see a deeper appreciation for all that Scripture has to say about the concept of “salvation” when we use that term. Yes, Justification is an extremely important issue that is intricately tied to the gospel, but the NT’s emphasis on “salvation” is bigger than just being “declared righteous.”

At any rate, when I’m explaining that baptism is not “necessary” for people to be “saved,” I almost always want to stress the importance of being obedient to the teachings of Scripture. So on one hand, it’s not necessary to be baptized to be “saved,” but it is necessary to be baptized to be obedient to Christ (and the NT). And yes, that takes time to flesh out and explain.

Anyway, I’m glad that I don’t have to do certain “works” in order to be right with God… and I’m extremely grateful that it’s all based on Christ’s work. That is very comforting for me.

How about you?

Send to Kindle
In Baptism , , , ,
 permalink

Luke Geraty

Posts Twitter Facebook Google+

Luke is the lead pastor of Trinity Christian Fellowship (Stanley, WI) and down with the Evangelical Theological Society, the Society of Vineyard Scholars, and serves as the current Moderator pro tem for the Association of Charismatic Reformed Churches. An avid coffee drinker, Luke enjoys spending time with his family, reading, and all things related to hockey and fly-fishing.
  • dave lathrop

    How is baptism a work? You get wet and hear words spoken. There is no effort whatsoever on the part of the person baptized. Baptism is clearly not a work done by humans, it’s a work of God.

  • http://www.thinktheology.org Luke Geraty

    Dave,

    Thanks for your question and comment.

    The concern about whether or not baptism is a “work” depends entirely upon what one means by the term “work.” As an evangelical, I believe that a chief concern I have would be related to whether someone believes that they are “saved” or “justified” because they were baptized. That’s what is meant by the term “work” in most discussions on this subject.

    It’s totally true that baptism isn’t a “work” in the sense of the Mosaic Law, of course. And it’s absolutely true that there is an extremely important passive aspect of baptism! But it’s equally true that there’s an active part too, which is why we read throughout the Book of Acts people making a choice to be baptized after they have placed their faith in Jesus.

    Plus, while God is the one who is immersing people into the Body of Christ and making the identifying with Jesus’ death, burial and Resurrection happen, people are still baptized by people too :) I have baptized a few people in my life and have watched a lot of other people baptize others :) But I don’t think that’s what you meant, right?
    :)

  • dave lathrop

    Yes, I understand your concern that someone would believe that salvation comes through baptism apart from faith. That would be like saying someone is saved because they heard the gospel proclaimed despite not having any faith. Rather, a person is saved when they hear the gospel and believe it.
    But, the question is, does the bible ever put baptism into the category of works? When it says “Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved” does that essentially mean “Believe and do good works and you shall be saved”? I would say no, baptism isn’t a work in that sense and the bible never portrays it that way. Baptism is a gift to us.
    And that’s what I mean by baptism being a work of God. It’s not something we’re accomplishing by our own efforts. I believe God designed baptism in that way so we can’t try to take any credit for it. Because, it really is hard to take pride in the fact that you heard someone say some words and put water on you (or dunked you). Baptism puts you in the position where you can only humbly trust God that he has accomplished something in you through the water and words.
    But then, I have to admit I am a little biased being part of a theological tradition (Lutheran) that sees the proclaimed gospel and baptism working together to provide salvation to those who receieve them in faith.

  • http://www.thinktheology.org Luke Geraty

    As a non-Lutheran Baptistic Calvinist (whoa!), I agree with much of your point. I don’t think the Bible refers to Baptism as a “work” that someone does to earn one’s salvation. Hence, any time someone gives me the impression that is what they believe, it’s time to talk some theology :)

    Speaking of Lutheranism, what’s the best treatment of the Lutheran theology of baptism in your opinion? I have Christian Dogmatics by John Muller and have read Richard Kolb’s essay in the book Understanding Four Views on Baptism counterpoints book, but I haven’t ever asked a Lutheran what their best essay is. Would love to know your opinion.

    One thought though about your statement about it being hard to take pride in being baptized… and this too is coming from a admittedly biased perspective who will totally acknowledge the weaknesses in my own tradition(s):

    I live in a community that is mostly Catholic but has a strong Lutheran presence as well. I’ve found it interesting that I’ve talked to quite a few people over the years who were baptized as Lutherans who believe they were “saved” and are “going to heaven” because they were baptized. Sometimes (and it is sometimes) I hear about Confirmation being a part of that assurance, but mostly it’s due to their baptism (which was always done to them as an infant).

    Would you agree that there is a false sense of assurance in that type of thinking? Would you agree that such thinking is both connected to some form of “pride” or a concept of “works based righteousness” to some degree?

    On a side note, I really do like the Lutheran (and Reformed Baptist and Anglican and…) emphasis on salvation in a more “big picture” process type of orientation. I see that the Lord works through those means of grace… so I liked that last comment.

    Blessings!

  • dave lathrop

    For a Lutheran essay on baptism, I would go with Martin Luther’s article on baptism from the Large Catechism. Can’t go wrong with that.
    Yes, there are many Lutherans who might say they were saved at baptism. Which, according the Lutheran perspective on baptism, could be true as we regard baptism as having the power to save regardless of whether or not one believes in Christ when it’s received. However, at the same time, we also believe that one does not get the benefits from baptism (salvation) until one has faith. So, baptism has the power to save and yet we are still saved by faith alone.
    And that is one of the reasons why no one likes Lutherans!
    I live not too far from you so I am in a somewhat similar context in Edgar, WI. I ran into blog looking for stuff on churches in central WI.

  • http://www.thinktheology.org Luke Geraty

    Dave,

    We don’t hate Lutherans. I myself actually love Luther and view him as being a hugely important person in the history of the church, much less one of the important people who recovered evangelical Protestantism from the deep darkness of the middle ages ;) ha ha. So, he’s super respected around these parts.

    We just see the issue of Justification and Lutheran paedobaptism as difficult to square… but we do so respectfully.

    I’ve got Luther’s works, so I’ll have to read those… I don’t know if I’ve ever read his whole catechism… I’ve read a LOT of it, but not all.

    Thanks!