This will be the first post in a brief series examining some of the texts in favour of the salvific importance of baptism, something Latter-day Saint theology and scripture teaches, as do most within the broad Christian spectrum (e.g. Roman Catholics; Eastern Orthodox; most Lutherans and Anglicans; most groups within the broad 19th century Restoration Movement [Churches of Christ; Christadelphians], etc.). It is only with John Calvin onwards that we find strong support for what we will label the “[purely] symbolic” view of baptism, which is held by groups such as Baptists, though Calvin often used inconsistent language in his Institutes and his commentaries on the relationship baptism had with salvation, ebbing in and out of the baptismal regeneration view.
From the get-go, I will need to make a few things clear—
Firstly, I recognise that many of those who hold to the “symbolic” view do not relegate the importance of believers (or infants of believers) to be baptised, and that it is a standing command in the New Testament (e.g. Matt 28:19). Granted, there are many who have a much lower view of baptism, and in some cases, denominations who don’t practice baptism (most notably the Quakers), but most opponents of the LDS view tend to have a “higher” view of baptism than these groups and individuals. While some Latter-day Saints often assume (in error) that many who hold such a view, I recognise that the opposite if often true. To be fair, many LDS interaction with proponents of this view are from those who belong to groups, particular “non-denomination” groups and others who have a very low view of baptism, so the blame is not often with the Latter-day Saint.
Secondly, baptism is not a human “work” that forces God into giving us salvation nor is it a legal work that somehow “merits” or even “guarantees” one’s ultimate salvation. Admittedly, there are proponents of this view within the traditions that hold to the “salvific” view of baptism, but it is often out of ignorance of what their denomination teaches. In the case of Latter-day Saint soteriology, baptism (when coupled with confirmation) is the beginning of one’s justification and being “born-again”; however, we do know that genuine believers who have been justified have lost their salvation, and had to be restored (e.g. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26). If any Latter-day Saint looks at his baptism as a “guarantee” that, no matter how his lifestyle, he will be saved and go to the Celestial Kingdom, he is in opposition to the Church’s teachings.
For instance, in Titus 3:3-5, the synergy between our being washed by baptism and God’s grace is seen, something which sums up the LDS understanding:
For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
Here, we read that the instrumental means of being saved by God was “by the washing of regeneration” (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας), which couples “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) with the term λουτρον, which is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to being washed with literal water (Eph 5:26), and was unanimously interpreted by patristic authors as being biblical proof of this view (e.g. Cyprian, Epistle 83.6; Augustine, Chapter 34 of A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins; Ambrose, Dogmatic Treatises, 10.6; Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 2.8). In LDS soteriology, baptism (and confirmation) serves as the instrumental means through which the Holy Spirit cleanses us of all past and then-present sins and makes us "new creatures."
Finally, for any study, one must engage in proper methods of exegesis, not just on this topic, but any theological issue. Often, opponents of the salvific view tend to relegate the texts that clearly couple salvation with baptism as “difficult texts” that must be relegated to “secondary” to the primary texts their particular denomination or theology privileges. This is nothing short of (1) eisegesis and (2) question-begging. Furthermore, it shows that the Protestant belief in the "perspicuity of Scripture"(tied into the doctrine of Sola Scriptura) to be nothing more than a shell-game, and even highlights the need for an authoritative structure other than the Bible alone as the final authority.
Romans 6:1-4 is a text that speaks of baptism in a way that is incompatible with the “symbolic” view. It reads:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grave may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν)? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον): that like as (ὥσπερ) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω) we also should walk in newness of life.
In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not effect. In the sense of their understanding of salvation, it is an outward sign of one having been saved and being incorporated “into Christ.” However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις—discussed in detail on my article on baptism and Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. There is no exegetical wiggle-room, so to speak, for a purely symbolic view.
Furthermore, for the symbolism of our incorporation into the death/burial and resurrection/newness of life “in Christ,” only baptism by immersion would be acceptable, but that is a different topic for a different day.
My next post will discuss Acts 2:38. Stay tuned!
