Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Uniting Restorationist and Evangelical Views of Baptism (Part 1)

I’ll never forget my baptism. I was fourteen years old. Both my mother and I were baptized on the same day in a pond right next to our church. Many other church members, both newer and more mature believers, were baptized at this bi-annual baptism service. Before each baptism, the person being baptized got to share their testimony. Some testimonies were short, some were long. Some heralded a recent conversion, while others celebrated a conversion that occurred decades earlier. After that event, I pondered many questions. How long should the gap between faith and baptism be? Should baptism be more immediate? Is it simply a proclamation of a past conversion, or something more?

After several years of poring over the New Testament and early Christian writings, my view of baptism began to shift from seeing it as a mere symbolic testimony of conversion to seeing it as an urgent, grace-filled initiation into the Christian life. At one point in our journey, my family and I even joined a “Restoration Movement”[1] church — a “Christian Church”. This breed of church teaches that water baptism plays a critical role in conversion, perhaps more critical than our Evangelical leanings allowed us to be comfortable with. So we asked our pastor the classic question at our new members’ class: “If a new believer was driving to the church to get baptized, crashed into a phone pole and died, would they still be going to hell?” The pastor assured us that they did not teach that, and that “God knows the person’s heart”. The co-founder of the restoration movement, Alexander Campbell, also made similar statements [99]. This satisfied our concerns. It’s refreshing to see “Restoration Movement” churches moving away from absolute baptismal necessity into this more evangelical understanding, while maintaining baptismal urgency.

It’s also quite encouraging to see many baptist churches moving from a lighter view of baptism toward a more sacramental view. The late George Raymond Beasley-Murray was a prominent British Baptist scholar, former principal at Spurgeon’s college, and professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He saw baptism as much more than a post facto proclamation of faith:

In the light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament representations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the New Testament itself. [1a]

It behoves us accordingly to make much of baptism. It is given as the trysting place of the sinner with his Saviour; he who has met Him there will not despise it. [1b]

Is there a middle ground where these Baptist and Restoration Movement theologians can reconcile? In this article I will briefly survey the relevant evidence in the New Testament and propose such a middle ground.

The Patterns of Baptism in Acts

The book of Acts documents the outpouring of the Holy Spirit onto the New Testament Church; an outpouring that resulted in regeneration and divine empowerment. The first major event happened during Pentecost, when 120 disciples of Jesus, who had a preliminary Old Testament “salvation”, are suddenly regenerated and baptized in the Holy Spirit after praying in the upper room (See Acts 2:1-4). Whether or not these 120 were already baptized in water is not mentioned in the passage.

The first mention of water baptism in Acts is during Peter’s sermon shortly after the aforementioned event. Peter, speaking to the onlookers, boldly states:

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. (Act 2:38 ESV)

The pattern he prescribes is:  (1) Repent, (2) Be Baptized, (3) Receive the Spirit (RBS). This RBS pattern was strictly followed for all the initial Jewish and mixed-Jewish groups, fulfilling God’s “water and Spirit” prophecies in the major prophets (Ezek 36:25, Isa 44:3); a motif referenced by Jesus Himself (John 3:5).

This pattern occurred with the mixed-Jewish Samaritans [2] in Acts 8, when they heard the Word, believed, were baptized, and shortly thereafter received the Holy Spirit.

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women … they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
(Act 8:12-17 ESV)

The pattern also occurred with the dispersed Messianic followers of John the Baptist in Acts 19, who Paul upgraded from an Old Testament faith in the “coming” Messiah to a New Testament faith in the risen Christ, which was followed by baptism and immediate reception of the Spirit.

And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
(Act 19:3-6 ESV)

Beasley-Murray recognizes this close relationship between water baptism with the reception of the Holy Spirit:

… in the Acts and Epistles baptism is the supreme moment of the impartation of the Spirit and of the work of the Spirit in the believer. [3a]

.. baptism is closely linked with the reception of the Spirit, howsoever it may be received; [3b]

Although the RBS pattern was fairly strict for these Jewish groups, it wasn’t entirely abandoned with the Gentile conversions. Even the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, according to Phillip’s prescription (v37), believed first, was baptized, and then “the Holy Spirit fell upon” him [3].

Nevertheless, the highly inaugural nature of the Spirit’s coming anticipated a pattern shift. The biggest pattern shift happened at the primary “Gentile inauguration” at Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:44-48), where the infilling and regeneration of the Spirit occurred without water baptism, thus breaking the RBS pattern of Acts 2:38. Yet, even in this instance, Peter wanted to immediately baptize these new Christians, saying:

“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
(Act 10:47-48 ESV)

The Correlation of Baptism with Salvation

In every case, with or without the RBS pattern, water baptism was very proximate to the salvation experience. Converts were baptized immediately, even in the middle of the night if necessary (Acts 16:33).  To the early church, salvation and baptism were nearly two sides of the same coin. Jesus approximated the company of the saved as those who would “believe and be baptized” (Mk 16:16).  The apostles make various statements that come close to equating our baptism with our salvation experience:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (Rom 6:3 ESV)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27 ESV)

having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12 ESV)

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, (1Pet 3:21 ESV)

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (Act 22:16 ESV)

What is going on here?  Is the New Testament advocating “baptismal regeneration”?  While understanding that there is nothing magical or ex opere operato about baptismal waters, and that salvation is by faith alone, we cannot deny that there is a Biblical correlation between baptism and salvation. How can this correlation be reconciled with salvation by faith alone?  Is there a mechanism that can make sense of these passages and patterns?

A Middle Ground Proposal

Robert Stein of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary weighs in on this dilemma with a helpful thesis:

In the New Testament, conversion involves five integrally related components or aspects, all of which took place at the same time, usually on the same day. These five components are repentance, faith, and confession by the individual, regeneration, or the giving of the Holy Spirit by God, and baptism by representatives of the Christian community.

In the mind of the first-century Christian, these five components were inextricably linked in conversion, just as they were for the New Testament writers.  There was no separation or exclusion of any of the elements. [4]

Stein’s points are well stated. He believes that conversion was a closely knit intersection of various elements — faith, repentance, confession, baptism, Spirit filling — inextricably linked to the caricature of a “saved” person. In his epistles, Paul always treats his audience as those who have received all five elements of conversion; both the invisible and the visible elements. He treats his cognizant readers as those who are buried in Christ, and buried in the baptismal waters (Rom 6:3); as those who are raised in newness of life, and raised out of the baptismal waters (Col 2:12); as those who are washed from sin, and washed in the baptismal waters (1 Cor 6:9, Tit 3:5). Baptism and belief were basically seen as a package deal. Beasley-Murray agrees:

The assertion, ‘Unless you become baptized you cannot be saved’, would have sounded to a first generation Christian like saying ‘Unless you believe and are Christ’s you cannot be a Christian’. [4a]

… in the New Testament faith and baptism are viewed as inseparables whenever the subject of Christian initiation is under discussion, so that if one is referred to, the other is presupposed, even if not mentioned. Care must be taken not to press this beyond warrant, but it is undoubtedly true that in the New Testament it is everywhere assumed that faith proceeds to baptism and that baptism is for faith … For in the New Testament precisely the same gifts of grace are associated with faith as with baptism. [4b]

Baptism as the “Sinner’s Prayer”

Stein’s inclusion of “confession” in the conversion formula reminds me of the popularized “sinner’s prayer”. Most evangelicals believe that there is a supplicative moment when someone genuinely cries out to God for salvation; a faith-response which suddenly transitions from conviction to appeal, from acknowledgment to profession, as the sinner “calls on the name of the Lord” and “confesses Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:9, 13, Psa 116:4). Why is this moment so critical? Because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). As the seeker cries out to God for salvation, their confession of the Gospel truth births a saving faith that apprehends it. 

So here is a thought-provoking question for evangelicals today:  What if the popularized sinner’s prayer was given less significance, and we instead emphasized initiation into the church via baptism? Wouldn’t this bring all five of Stein’s conversion elements into a tighter proximity for the cognizant seeker? Paul aligns “calling on the name of the Lord” with baptism when he tells Ananias, “be baptized … calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Peter argues that an appeal for a good conscience is made during baptism (1 Pet 3:21). Finally, we have the profound confession of the Eunuch in Acts 8:36, just before he was immersed. All these examples temporally align a saving “confession” of Christ with the act of baptism. The Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes, concurs,

It was proper that this calling on the name of the Lord should be connected with the ordinance of baptism [5a]

Picture this typical course of events. A girl hears the gospel from her friend and is deeply moved. Over two weeks, she feels increasingly convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit that the Gospel is true. Weeks later, her friend invites her to church, and during the service, she feels compelled to go forward and pray to receive Christ, publicly calling on the name of the Lord.

Now picture this second version. A girl hears the gospel from her friend and is deeply moved. Over two weeks, she feels increasingly convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit that the Gospel is true. Weeks later, her friend invites her to church, and during the service, she feels compelled to go forward and be baptized, publicly calling on the name of the Lord.

The only difference between these stories is the mode in which the effectual calling on the name of the Lord occurred. Why can’t evangelicals move toward the latter story? Perhaps one would argue that such a notion would bring into question her spiritual state during the two week period. But couldn’t the same be said of the altar call in the first story?

Most Evangelicals would agree that a seeker moves through stages of preliminary remorse, conviction, intellectual assent to the Gospel, and even a desire for salvation, before effectually calling on the name of the Lord. This is a genuine response to grace. The Puritans called this kind of grace “Common Grace” [5]; a grace through which God normally prepares the sinner for salvation. “Special Grace” on the other hand, is the effectual grace that creates true saving faith at the moment of salvation. Using these concepts, we could say that, in both stories, the girl had been responding to common grace for two weeks, but didn’t receive special grace — saving faith and salvation — until she genuinely called on and confessed Jesus as Lord at the church at the end of the story. Both stories have the “gray area” between the preliminary belief and the objective moment of conversion, leading us to ask the “phone pole” question I alluded to in the introduction. However, we cannot let this “gray area” dictate our theology, but rather leave all judgment to our holy, just, loving and kind God.

The notion that saving faith is catalyzed by the gracious circumstances of baptism is nothing new. Consider Lutherans and Reformed Presbyterians (RP’s). Though both affirm faith alone (sola fide), Lutherans believe that faith is mysteriously given to infants during baptism, while RP’s believe that infants have some mysterious “seed of faith” hidden in them by the Spirit, presumably and likely causing later regeneration. Calvin himself wrote,

infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit [5b]   

Even Reformed Baptist commentator John Gill claims that baptism can be God’s means of leading someone into saving faith. He wrote,

But the ordinance of baptism, may be, and sometimes is, a means of leading the faith of God’s children to the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin” [5c]

An Occasion, not a Condition or a Work

In the book Four Views on Baptism, the modern Restoration Movement view is not included in the Baptismal Regeneration chapter, but in a chapter entitled “Believer’s Baptism as the occasion of salvation”. I like this idea, because it distinguishes between faith alone (sola fide) as the “means” for salvation, and baptism as an occasion where such faith can be ignited, cultivated, and expressed. According to Colossians 2:12 it is baptism “in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God”. Notice the two prepositions in this passage. The preposition “in” points to the occasion or location of being raised (“in baptism”), while the preposition “through” points to the means of being raised (“through faith”).  Accordingly, it was in the occasion of baptism that their faith in God’s “powerful working” brought their spiritual resurrection. 

This eradicates any notion of baptism being a work. Placing yourself in the occasion of baptism is no more a work than placing yourself in the occasion of an evangelistic sermon. Both are servants and triggers of faith. Both communicate the Word audibly, if performed as prescribed, but the former also conveys it illustratively. In baptism, the proclaimed Word becomes divinely illuminated when combined with the illustrated Word of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The water is a mere sacramental servant helping that amplification take place.

John Mark Hicks, a modern scholar from the Restoration Movement, says it this way:

Faith and baptism are deeply related to each other. Faith and baptism are connected at every level so that even what is assigned to faith (e.g. remission of sins in Acts 10:43) is connected to baptism (e.g., remission of sins in Acts 2:38). They are united in their meaning and significance. However, one is more foundational than the other. Faith is the means of baptism’s effectiveness (cf. Col. 2:12) and baptism participates in the instrumentality of faith as the means of grace. Baptism serves faith rather than faith serving baptism. Baptism was made for faith rather than faith for baptism. Consequently, faith must have priority and so we value faith more than baptism. This does not devalue baptism because its value derives from God’s work through faith. [5d]

Quoting Wotherspoon, Beasley-Murray also stresses that the efficacy of baptism depends on faith, and that none of Stein’s aforementioned activities (confession, baptism, Spirit filling, etc) can replace faith or stand alone without it:

‘The sacraments are central to the life of grace — they are its shrine and core; but they are contained, embraced and supported by faith in that which they “signify, seal and apply”. Their place can be spiritually supplied, as in the case of the “baptism of blood”, or a quest for baptism which is frustrated by intervening death, or of the spiritual communion of such as die beyond the reach of ministry: but nothing save the gift of faith can supply the lack of faith. He who has faith, but cannot obtain a sacrament, has Christ: he who has a sacrament but has not faith has nothing’ [6]

Conclusion

Today many cognizant seekers can and do express a saving supplicative faith apart from water baptism. Many wait months or even years to be baptized. The point of this article is not lessen their conversion or bring judgment upon them. At the same time, I cannot stress enough that such a practice was foreign to the early New Testament church. While Baptism was not an absolute condition for salvation, it was assumed to be a part of the conversion process. For many, it was the occasion of the notorious “sinner’s prayer”; where saving faith, water, and confession all intersected. It was the occasion where the Holy Spirit descended upon them and empowered them, as He descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Mt 3:16-17). I pray that the modern evangelical church would place a renewed urgency on this beautiful spiritual experience without falling into the ditches of absolute necessity or ex opere operato baptismal regeneration. I pray that every church would have its baptismal ready for converts every Sunday, and that every altar call would be a baptismal call! Let’s get wet!

Check out Part 2 of this series, where we consider the Early Church Fathers on this topic.

Click the SUBSCRIBE button at the bottom to get emails when new articles publish!

Click the link to our FACEBOOK Group at the bottom. Come and join the conversation!

Interested in my other baptism article, A Paedobaptist Friendly Credobaptism? Click here

References

[1] The restoration movement was a late 18th Century revivalism movement that sought to unify all Christians into a single church patterned after the New Testament church. The goal was to eliminate denominational names names and sophisticated creeds and get back to basic New Testament practices, particularly those mentioned in the book of Acts — Studying the scriptures, breaking bread (i.e. communion) frequently, and placing baptism much closer to salvation.

[1a] Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. Wipf and Stock, 2006. Page 263.

[1b] ibid, Page 305

[2] The Samaritans were made up of Israelites who were not exiled when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 722 BCE— mixed with ethnic groups whom the Assyrians had resettled in the area.  The pure Jews didn’t get along with this alleged hybrid Jewish race, so this event was a monumental sign for the Jews. 

[3] Alexandrian MS

[3a] Beasley-Murray, 275

[3b] Ibid, 301

[4] Robert H. Stein.  Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament

[4a] Beasley-Murray, 298

[4b] Ibid, 272

[5] In reformed theology, common grace is grace that God offers to all people, either providentially, naturally, or by (savingly) non-effectual operations of the Spirit. It has the power to prepare the sinner through conviction, remorse, intellectual and emotional yearning for religion. Special (or efficacious) grace, on the other hand, is reserved only for the elect. This grace efficaciously causes saving faith by the direct effectual operation of the Spirit.

[5a] Barnes on Acts 22:16

[5b] Institutes, IV, xvi, 20; Schenck, pp. 18­24].

[5c] John Gill on Acts 22:16

[5d] John Mark Hicks. Seeking Consensus: A ” Kinder, Gentler ” Campbellite Baptismal Theology 1.

[6] Beasley-Murray, 304

[99] Alexander Campbell quotes about exceptions to the baptism condition for salvation (Millennial Harbinger, 1837):

I cannot make literal immersion in water, in all cases, essential to admission into the kingdom of eternal glory;

The case is this: When I see a person who would die for Christ whose brotherly kindness, sympathy, and active benevolence know no bounds but his circumstances; whose seat in the Christian assembly is never empty; whose inward piety and devotion are attested by punctual obedience to every known duty; whose family is educated in the fear of the Lord; whose constant companion is the Bible…”Sir, will not his uncircumcision, or unbaptism, be counted to him for baptism? and will he not condemn you, who, though having the literal and true baptism, yet dost transgress or neglect the statutes of your King?”

I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. “Salvation was of the Jews,” acknowledged the Messiah; and yet he said of a foreigner, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, a Syro-Phenician, “I have not found so great faith–no, not in Israel.”

I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.