WW--Baptism Doesn't Matter

• It’s just a symbol, not a sacrament.
• If someone doesn’t get baptized, what’s the consequence?
• Many of the fights within Christianity have been over doctrines of no consequence, this being a key example. If people would just accept that it doesn’t matter, then we could have a lot more unity. Besides, most of the people who really squabble about baptism have views of it that entail it not really mattering anyhow. Like Baptists.
• The thief on the cross was saved without baptism.
• All Jesus wants is to be invited into your heart. Rev 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with me.”
• Salvation is by praying and confessing Jesus, not by being baptized.
• We are saved by the blood of Jesus, not by baptism.
• Those who are baptized are already saved. It doesn’t save you.
• John 3:16 says that all we need to do is believe in Him.
• Romans 10 doesn’t mention baptism at all.
• Ephesians 2 says a person is saved by faith, not by works.
• Acts 3:19 says to repent and turn to God, not to be baptized.
• Acts 16:30-31 says to believe and you will be saved, not be baptized.
• The Bible teaches that the just shall live by faith, not by baptism.

Response/Post-show thoughts: The troubling thing is that the choice to say baptism is "merely" a symbol logically entails the conclusion that it doesn't matter. My wedding ring is a symbol of my marriage. Truly, wearing it is without import. And the question to ask is, "If it's merely a symbol, what is the consequence if someone doesn't do it?" Saying that not doing it has no consequence is the same as saying it doesn't matter. I have long said that being baptized is the first act of obedience of every Christian, and that, if someone confesses Christ and refuses to be baptized, something is very wrong. I'm moving much more in the direction of an even stronger, sacramental view. How do we get access to the blood of Christ? By being in His Body. How are we put into His Body? By baptism.

If we study Acts, every event of salvation is accompanied by baptism. The epistles contain things that can be construed as not mandating baptism, but remember that these are written to already Christians as well as the same epistles that talk about salvation also talking about baptism in other parts. Romans 6, Ephesians 4, etc. John 3 is a total mistake since right in the beginning of the passage water is said to be necessary. Hebrews 6 specifically says repentance, faith, and baptism are basic doctrines. Even the thief on the cross, a much over-emphasized counterexample in my opinion, was not a Christian. Jesus hadn't died and been raised yet. Besides, it's possible (though only conjecturable) that he had been baptized by John, who baptized lots of unlisted people in the region. The mistake of many (myself included in the past) is thinking that baptism is something we do. It's not. God does it, according to Colossians 2:12. Bathing and saying some words does not accomplish baptism, faith and the Spirit of God accomplish it.

There are 10 times in Acts where conversions occur, and each one shows people being baptized. None of them involve private acts of prayer alone, and such prayer is not even mentioned as normative. If someone says that baptism is not an essential component of a completed salvation, the burden of proof is on them to explain why baptism matters at all, why it was historically thought to be essential, and why there are no examples of salvation without it in Acts. This is nothing but the logical conclusion of beliving that it matters, which even those who call it merely symbolic surely do. Even Luther said in the small catechism:

"What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer. It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

It took me years to come even near this view, and I don't expect many will quickly accept it. That's okay. But beware thinking that I'm somehow adding something to the Gospel that wasn't already in there according to the New Testament. It's my view that many (myself included) have taken away essential things from It, much to my theological chagrin. Please post your thoughts. I more than anything want to get this right, especially if I've got it wrong now.