Gospel Prism

When I as in seminary, I had a professor (Greg Beale) who said that he was 60% believer’s baptist and 40% paedo-baptist. The more you study baptism and its biblical and theological outworkings, the more you understand his statement. Both positions have valid arguments. Both positions have major questions, especially in wrestling with the understanding of the covenant.

Every time we prepare for infant dedication, I have a short session with the parents to explain why we dedicate rather than baptize. And every time, the looks are the same, one of puzzlement and bewilderment. It’s always, “I never realized infant dedication/baptism dealt with so much.” BUt the reality is that the BIble is not so clear on the issue.

Is baptism a requirement then? Well, baptism is commanded in the NT. Jesus tells the disciples in Matthew 28 to “baptize” in the name of the Father, Son, and the Spirit. Every time a household is saved, or the Ethiopian eunuch, baptism follows. But also we know that one can be in heaven and not be baptized. Clearly, the thief on the cross was saved and yet he was not baptized. Also, not even baptism can save or add anything to what it means to be justified by Christ’s work alone.

So it is required for salvation? No, it is not. Is it commanded? Yes, it is. To think of baptism as nothing more than ritual is to reject much of Scripture’s teaching on it. To claim baptism as necessary for salvation is to set aside justification by faith alone.