Discussion on Baptismal Regeneration

The below articles are a discussion Sword and Trumpet had with Followers of the Way church in Boston, MA. Followers of the Way (FOTW) is closely associated with Sattler College, a Christian college that is attracting quite a few young Anabaptists.

The spark for this discussion was a pair of videos published by FOTW in 2021 on the role of baptism in salvation. In our opinion, their view (baptismal regeneration) is a departure from the prevailing historic view of the Anabaptists and is in disharmony with the whole of Scripture. We encourage you to read with discernment.

This exchange was conducted via a series of letters written throughout the last year. It is being published with the consent of FOTW.

First Letter from Sword and Trumpet Ministries
Julian Stoltzfus, October 1, 2021

I’m writing representing the Sword & Trumpet, a conservative Anabaptist ministry known primarily for its monthly publication. We keep our fingers on the pulse of various groups of Anabaptists, with particular interest to who and what are influencing their theology. Due to the growing popularity of Sattler College, and your close connection to them, your teachings are impacting more and more people. With this in view, we thought it important to express to you some of our concerns about your teachings.

But before that, we want to express our appreciation for your emphasis on Christocentric faith. Obedience to Christ’s commands is a crucial part of faithful Christianity that’s often neglected by the church. But in some issues we think you’ve moved away from biblical Christianity, focusing more on what the early church taught rather than what Scripture seems to make quite clear.

Our concerns spring from a pair of videos on baptism that were published earlier this year, one by Matthew Milioni and one by Finny Kuruvilla. In both videos, baptism was put forward as an act required for a person to be saved, over and above simple personal faith. Baptism was clearly taught as absolutely essential for salvation. This is, in our opinion, opposed to the clear biblical teaching that salvation is received by grace through faith.

The gospel we see you teaching seems to be one of faith plus works rather than a faith that works as Anabaptists have emphasized. This is a departure from the biblical gospel. We believe that salvation is secured only through the blood of Christ, and we can receive it only by faith—the end of confidence in self and full trust in Christ alone.

This is a distinctly different gospel than we see taught. For example, Milioni’s statement that “the extent to which I am close to Jesus is the extent to which I’m saved” places ultimate confidence for salvation in how faithful we have been in our relationship with Christ. As we are close to Christ, He gives us more grace. In contrast, we believe that any positive relationship with Christ results from justification rather than being a means of justification. While a vibrant relationship with Christ is essential, it is neither a way of attaining salvation nor of maintaining it. Namely, “we love Him because He first loved us” rather than Him loving us because of our love for Him. Relationship then springs from our comprehension of His grace which covers all of our sins.

We are also concerned about the seeming contradiction between requiring baptism for regeneration yet expecting regenerate behavior from an individual before he can be baptized. You have made it clear that you believe one is not saved until he partakes of the sacrament of baptism. On the other hand, you have presented a list of requirements for those who want to be baptized. The question posed was, “Were you bearing the weight of a full-fledged Christian at your baptism?” Fasting, evangelizing, seeking the fellowship of the saints, partaking in church discipline, admonishing, and being in accountability were all given as test measures. But how can one bear this weight without a new nature, which can only come through baptism? And how can he live obediently without the Holy Spirit’s help, Who is also only present after baptism in your view? Requiring obedience prior to regeneration implies that the unregenerate man can, on his own power, live a holy life.

We’re not trying to be nitpicky by singling out these couple videos, but we are aware of instances where your teaching on baptism has created division and unrest in Anabaptist churches. We are concerned that you are confusing the gospel rather than clarifying the truth.

We plan to write a response to these videos in an upcoming issue of the Sword and Trumpet. Our goal in contacting you is to open the conversation with you privately so we don’t misrepresent your position. Are we understanding your position correctly? We look forward to your response.

---

First Letter from Followers of the Way
November 3, 2021

Thank you for your concern and we appreciate your Christian kindness by allowing us to engage in a good-faith conversation between conscientious disciples of Jesus.

Michael Sattler said famously “bring me the scriptures in Greek, Latin or Hebrew and show me my error and I shall recant.” As you saw from our teachings we cover extensively the major texts regarding the subject of baptism, and that is what we will set out to do in this response to your letter. It is important to begin any conversation with the text in context without bias. We believe this is the way to approach the scriptures and how we have come to teach and practice doctrines such as baptism, head covering, and non-resistance to name a few. Another important approach we take is starting with Jesus’ teachings on a given matter and allowing them to lay the foundation to understand Paul and the other Apostolic teachings.

The Scriptures teach that salvation is a process we have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved. The main question that needs to be answered is what is the role of baptism in relation to salvation. To be clear, the teaching that we see in the Bible which represents the sacrament of baptism as a grace from God cannot be a work of the flesh. Can a man remit his own sins? Can a man wash away his sins as if they were mud? Of course not, only God can and He has through the Scriptures taught very clearly that baptism is the vehicle by which he does this. Grace is well defined as God’s power to do God’s will or as Paul states in his letter to Titus “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good”. In our collective experience, having dialogue with hundreds of conservative Anabaptists, we have found that most have never done a careful study of the Scriptures on Baptism. The default position "in the air" is the Protestant evangelical position wherein baptism is a mere symbol—unless we are mistaken, this is the position you have taken.

Scripture teaches that baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection in union with King Jesus. It is the rite of passage given by King Jesus to the Church as entrance into the Kingdom of God, receiving the Holy Spirit and the promise of eternal life. Repentance and faith, along with baptism are the means by which we are born again.

If we use Jesus as the starting point and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we see at Jesus’ baptism water and Spirit.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.

Matthew 3:16

What happens at Jesus’ baptism helps to bring meaning to the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus when Jesus tells Nicodemus “you must be born again” more specifically born of the water and the Spirit. After the resurrection of Jesus, He told his followers “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. It is no wonder that on the day of Pentecost after Peter’s message Scripture says:

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Peter's answer to the people involves water and Spirit There is a noticeable continuity with what happens at Jesus’ baptism, what Jesus tells Nicodemus, what Jesus teaches his disciples and what happens when Peter tells the people what to do.

Another interesting passage to note in the book of Acts is the Philippian Jailer found in Acts 16 which says:

Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

One might say baptism is not mentioned here therefore it is obviously not an essential part of becoming a Christian, one must simply believe. However, one point I think we both would agree on is that repentance is an essential part of what it means to come to faith in Christ and there is no mention of the need to repent in this interaction between Paul and the Jailer. So can we conclude from this one passage that repentance and baptism have no part in coming to faith? Of course not. What is even more interesting is the continuation of the passage which gives more definition to what took place and what is involved with “believing in the Lord Jesus.”

And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 

In short, we hope that you can hear the truth of the word of God and that we can all humble ourselves to the Scriptures and hear them even if they challenge our long-held assumptions. Woe unto any of us who when we sought to teach others should find ourselves in error. Our hope is that you would join us in promoting the simple, clear teachings of Scripture fulfilling Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17.

Please do not examine our words near as carefully as you examine the Scriptures which say with no comment from us the following:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 3:3-12

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Matthew 28:19-20

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:41

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 22:16

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:3-4

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:26-27

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

1 Peter 3:18-22

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13

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.

Titus 3:5

---

Second Letter from Sword and Trumpet Ministries
Nolan Martin, December 1, 2021

Thank you for engaging us in a discussion on the important topic of the role of baptism in salvation. In your first letter you expressed that your ideal reading of Scripture is to start with the text in context and read without bias. We also want to take the Bible at face value and not twist it to suit our biases. We concede this is hard if not impossible for anyone to do. We suspect you may be unconsciously committed to biases from the Church of Christ denomination.

We admit to possible bias from the Anabaptist tradition. We deny, however, the Protestant evangelical influence on our view of baptism and believe rather that the Anabaptists influenced their view. Conrad Grebel expresses well the majority view of both the early Anabaptists and present-day Anabaptists.

The Scripture describes baptism for us thus, that it signifies that, by faith and the blood of Christ, sins have been washed away from him who is baptized, changes his mind, and believes before and after; that it signifies that a man is dead and ought to be dead to sin and walks in newness of life and spirit, and that he shall certainly be saved if, according to this meaning, by inner baptism he lives his faith; so that water baptism does not confirm or increase faith as the scholars at Wittenberg say. . . Also, baptism does not save, as Augustine, Tertullian, Theophylact, and Cyprian have taught, dishonoring faith and the suffering of Christ… (qtd. in Klaassen 164).

So, we believe we hold the historical Anabaptist view of baptism, but more importantly we believe this view to be biblical. Conrad Grebel puts his finger exactly on the point where “baptismal regeneration” conflicts with Scripture. It dishonors faith by maintaining that salvation is attained by faith plus baptism. The Bible teaches, however, that faith is the only means to salvation. In contrast, baptism is a work, and works are specifically excluded as Paul asserts in Ephesians 2:8-9. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Many similar verses show that the weight and tenor of Scripture favors by far a view of salvation by faith that excludes baptism as a means to salvation.

Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:15

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Acts 15:8-9

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:1-2

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:9

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:14

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:26

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:15

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Hebrews 10:38

We understand your argument that it would be faulty to conclude that the essential parts of salvation are not really essential because they are not listed in every passage about salvation. We would expect, however, that if baptism were a required means to salvation it would be listed in most passages on the topic or at least inferred. We would expect New Testament writers to be very careful not to be misunderstood on so important a topic as the means to salvation. Surely their scroll had enough room to add “and baptism” for clarification. But they do not. Why not? What we have instead is an abundance of statements that leave little room for additional means to salvation alongside faith.

This is the broader context within which the verses on baptism must be interpreted. If the starting point is to set the text in context without bias, such verses must be harmonized and not dismissed as Protestant proof texts as the manner of some is. Due to their clarity and abundance, logic and good hermeneutics dictate they should not only be harmonized but also treated as controlling passages when interpreting more ambiguous verses.

You deny that baptism is a work of the flesh and instead assert that it is a grace of God. Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines “work” as “a deed, act.” Baptism fits this definition. It is commanded in Scripture (“be baptized”) as an act to be done. On the other hand, Scripture never calls baptism “a grace” nor can we see how it fits your definition of grace, “God’s power to do God’s will.” We believe baptism is properly called a work and therefore is excluded as a means to salvation.

To be clear, baptism is an important work. Scripture commands it, and those who truly believe will desire it. As you point out, the New Testament sometimes connects baptism with salvation. But does baptism precede salvation, is it simultaneous, or does it follow? We believe it follows. Baptism is a public declaration of what has already happened. It is a necessary confession (not just a "mere symbol") of what has happened in the heart.

We say “necessary confession” in the sense that it may not be refused. Refusing to be baptized may keep one out of the kingdom of God since this is refusing to identify with Jesus in the way He prescribes. This is not the same as saying that baptism contributes to our salvation which we firmly reject. Those who believe and desire baptism are saved based on their faith even if they have not yet been baptized. The conversion story of Cornelius who received the Holy Spirit before being baptized supports this conclusion.

You assume that we agree that “repentance is an essential part of what it means to come to faith in Christ.” We do agree, but your teachings about baptism do not parallel this statement. If they did, we would have no disagreement. Rather, you teach that baptism is a required vehicle for salvation. We believe baptism and repentance accompany faith, but neither are vehicles to salvation. This is an important distinction which the Bible makes which you do not make.

This view - that baptism is a result of faith (as are repentance and good works) and not a “vehicle” to faith, grace, or being born again - harmonizes beautifully with the tenor of Scripture and exemplifies the biblical Anabaptist view of the relationship between faith, works, and salvation. While the Catholics (and other baptismal regenerationists) teach salvation by faith plus works, and Protestants teach salvation by faith without works; the Anabaptists teach salvation by faith that works.

This provides the basic framework for how we interpret many of the verses you quote. For example, when Peter says in Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized,” he assumes faith because the question he is answering indicates faith. Instead, he names the two most necessary things they needed to do in that context to show their faith. They needed to repent particularly of supporting the crucifixion of Jesus. And they needed to be baptized to publicly confess that they no longer rejected Jesus but rather believed He was the Son of God. To refuse baptism in that context was tantamount to refusing Jesus and thus salvation. Neither baptism nor repentance were means, however, to their salvation. They were saved by grace through faith.

In closing, we have two questions. They are somewhat loaded, but we do seek clarification. First, there is always a time gap between when someone believes and when they get baptized. It could be long depending on the availability of water and the availability of a willing baptizer. Many churches require new believers to take an instruction class before they will baptize. In general, what do you believe is the salvation status of believers who desire baptism but die prior to baptism? Are they saved or lost?

Second, we understand that you require faith and evidence of conversion prior to baptism. We also understand that you believe regeneration and filling of the Holy Spirit happen at baptism. How are new believers to show evidence of conversion in order to qualify for baptism if they have not yet been regenerated or filled with the Spirit? Can one live a changed life without regeneration or the Holy Spirit?

Apparently not finding baptismal regeneration taught in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew Bible; Michael Sattler maintained that faith was the only means to salvation. At his trial before being executed he gave this defense regarding his view of baptism. “As to baptism we say: Infant baptism is of no avail to salvation; for it is written, that we live by faith alone” (qtd. In Braght 417). We agree with Sattler and remain unpersuaded that baptism is a vehicle for regeneration. Although faith is never alone, we are saved by grace through faith alone.

Works Cited:

• Braght, Thieleman J. van. The Bloody Theater, Or, Martyrs’ Mirror. Translated by Joseph F. Sohm. Scottdale, PA. Herald Press, 1990. Print.
• Klaassen, Walter. Anabaptism in Outline. Waterloo, ON. Herald Press, 1981. Print.
• Vine, William Edwy. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985. Digital.

---

Second Letter from Followers of the Way
December 31, 2021

Thank you for your response.

One of your points is that you believe that the NT writers should have written exhaustively on the criteria for salvation in every verse where salvation is discussed. Your argument was that a scroll has sufficient space so that every time faith is mentioned, writers could have added repentance and baptism, but did not. You believe that they thus consciously exclude repentance and baptism as conditions of salvation in favor of "faith alone."

Problems abound with this perspective. You are imposing your belief that the NT writers would permit our slicing out individual verses from the Scriptures (centuries later) and that each verse would be sufficiently complete to treat as a standalone, comprehensive theological statement. We strongly disagree. The primary locus of meaning is not in the verse (verse divisions were not added until the 1500s!), but in the book as a whole, and even the fabric of the entire canon. Our thesis is that biblical authors could speak in shorthand on a topic knowing that the larger context of a book (or even other books in the NT) would interpret a particular verse.

We were disappointed that you thus dismissed nearly all of the chief NT texts on baptism (Matt 3:16, Matt. 28:18-20, John 3:3-12, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12, 1 Peter 3:18-22, 1 Cor 12:13, Titus 3:5) despite the fact that these verses show that baptism is described as where the Spirit is received, we are washed, sins are remitted, we are buried with Christ, clothed with Christ, raised to newness of life, and incorporated into the one body. Somehow you found the plain reading of those verses to violate your understanding of “faith alone.” Ironically, if one does an electronic search for “faith alone,” that expression is only used once in the NT where it says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24)! It is remarkable that people cling to expressions that Scripture explicitly repudiates. James’ point is that faith cannot be divided from human action and that to do so is spiritually dangerous. The NT repeatedly links salvation to faith, repentance, and baptism. What God has joined, let not man put asunder.

Another reason for your objection to the historic view on baptism is a common misunderstanding of Ephesians 2:8-9. That passage is primarily about merit (note the language about gift and boasting). In Greek, the contrast is grammatically not between faith and works, but works and God’s gift. No human work earns salvation--it is a gift. But does this mean that humans are passive in the process of entering the kingdom? Of course not. If a beggar accepts a check for a million dollars and cashes the check, has he earned that money? No. But did he have to do something? Yes–reach out his hand, grasp the check, walk to the bank, and cash the check! We thus distinguish between 1) fulfilling the conditions of salvation and 2) earning salvation. These are different matters that you confuse. We strenuously advocate that Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that works do not earn our salvation but says nothing about the conditions of repentance and baptism. By faith, through repentance and baptism, we are saved. “Faith” can be used as shorthand for this entire package, sometimes referred to as synecdoche.

By your definition, repentance is also a work. Repentance is something that we do and is commanded by Scripture. To be consistent, you should say that statements like “faith and repentance brings salvation” are heretical because they join works to faith as a condition for salvation. But the Bible has no such qualms. So often we read statements tantamount to: “Repent and you will be saved” (see Luke 5:32, 13:3, 15:7, 24:47, Acts 3:19, 2 Cor 7:10). Consider also Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Confession is surely a work–it is something we do. Here Paul teaches that a work plus faith brings salvation! Thus the Bible repudiates the artificial categories of Protestant thought.

Ironically, baptism is less of a work than repentance. The NT uses the word baptism in the passive voice; you cannot baptize yourself. Someone else (a human, but ultimately Jesus!) baptizes the individual who has faith. We thus closely associate faith, baptism, and grace. What of your question about the person awaiting baptism who dies in a car crash, who merely has “faith alone.” Will that person be saved? This question reminds us of similar questions that we are asked. Can someone be saved by "faith alone" while living in adultery (e.g. in divorce & remarriage)? What about living in "faith alone" without the headcovering? Isn’t that attaching works to salvation? Your question errs by basically asking "How disobedient can we possibly be and still be saved?" Of course, God can save someone in ignorance or without opportunity to be baptized or someone intending to be baptized. In normal circumstances, faith, repentance, and baptism are the conditions for salvation. But God is a God of mercy who forgives partial repentance and honors “the baptism of desire” (a category from the early church for people imprisoned and unable to be baptized).

Sometimes hypothetical cases from sympathy (“What if someone intrudes into your home to kill your family? How could you not shoot him?”) are clever devices to avoid obedience to Scripture. God may well make baptismal exceptions based on extraordinary circumstances, but His mercy should not provide license to disobey normal patterns of Scripture. Baptism is normally the final step at entering into Christian life–Jesus calls it being born again.

To your second question about the Spirit’s activity before baptism, the Holy Spirit is the one who opens the heart, inspires faith, and convicts of sin. His activity precedes baptism. At baptism, the Holy Spirit comes upon a person with greater empowerment for ministry. Jesus had the Holy Spirit before baptism (Matt 1:20) but received the Spirit at baptism (Matt 3:16). The disciples also had the Spirit before Jesus tells them to wait for the Spirit in Acts 1:5 (see John 20:22). Jesus gives a helpful analogy: baptism is the new birth. Is birth the beginning of life? No. Conception is. Similarly faith is the beginning of our Christian journey but baptism is the last step of the process to initiate the Christian life. Faith is to conception as baptism is to birth. Your question presumes that salvation happens at one point in time, as opposed to the biblical view of salvation beginning as a composite process, a cluster of three tightly linked conditions–faith, repentance, and baptism.

Let us now ask you a question. When someone professes faith, would you say, "What are you waiting for? Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins" (Acts 22:16). Our fear is that your separating baptism from salvation has separated you from the very words of the NT. Many people wince at and neglect crucial teachings of Scripture because of dangerous adherence to “faith alone” theologies.

Your treatment of Acts 2:38 we found particularly strained. You wrote, “Neither baptism nor repentance were means, however, to their salvation. They were saved by grace through faith.” Yet Peter explicitly says that the repentance and baptism were the conditions of having their sins remitted. In response to gospel preaching, the crowd asks, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) It is hard to imagine a more clear response: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). By meeting two conditions–repentance and baptism–they receive two benefits, the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit. Note that Peter does not say “because your sins already have been remitted” but instead “for the remission of sins” and in order to receive (future tense) the gift of the Holy Spirit. No one in the early church or the early Anabaptists interpreted Acts 2:38 in the manner that you did (see below). Your forced interpretation is likely driven by a Protestant theology of “faith alone” where we are saved apart from repentance and baptism. Only those reading Acts 2:38 with a significant Protestant bias would adopt such an unnatural reading.

Your citations of Anabaptist sources we found to be mishandled. You cited two references rebutting infant baptism. (We also vehemently reject infant baptism.) But those references were wholly unsatisfactory to prove your point. It is easy to misquote the Anabaptists because they were often denouncing infant baptism. In their statements against infant baptism, it can appear as if they were negative on baptism as having supernatural efficacy to remit sins. But this is because they are speaking about individuals not having faith when baptized! One must carefully read longer texts that are on topic for their views on the baptism of adults who are able to personally have faith (as opposed to infants). To be sure, the Anabaptists were a diverse, dynamic movement and did not all speak uniformly on the topic. But in settled, carefully reasoned pieces endorsed by the community, we find a largely biblical position and one that is vastly closer to ours than to yours.

A more complete overview of the early Anabaptist view on adult baptism comes from Peter Hoover's Secret of the Strength. We would urge readers to study all of Chapter 11 in context. (Hoover has an excellent command of primary Anabaptist sources in the original languages.) For example, Menno Simons said, "We preach that remission of sins takes place in baptism, not on account of the water of the rite performed (Jesus Christ is the only means of grace) but because men receive the promises of the Lord by faith and obediently follow his Word and will" (115). Conrad Grebel says, "Baptism is for those who want to better themselves, take on a new life, die to immorality, get buried with Christ and rise out of baptism to newness of life" (112). Note the clear reference to Romans 6, one of the most important texts on baptism. Indeed, Michael Sattler invokes Romans 6 in the famous Schleitheim Confession, which reads, "Baptism shall be given to all those who have been taught repentance and the amendment of life and [who] believe truly that their sins are taken away through Christ, and to all those who desire to walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and be buried with him in death, so that they might rise with him." (Klassen, Anabaptism in Outline, 168). Note again the unmistakable reference to Romans 6 as describing what happens at baptism. Baptism, according to the Schleitheim Confession and Romans 6, is where we are buried with Christ and raised to new life. Sattler's position is corroborated by the Bucer-Capito letters. C. Arnold Snyder, the great historian of Michael Sattler, summarizes Sattler's position on adult baptism: "Christ came to save those who believe on him, and baptism is necessary for salvation" (Snyder, The Life and Thought of Michael Sattler, Herald Press, 112). The Schleitheim Confession was no anomaly. The later Elbing-Waldeck catechism, very popular among the Amish and Mennonites across many countries, languages, and centuries, (https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Catechism&oldid=162939) was used to instruct those awaiting baptism. It asks and answers, "Is baptism essential to salvation? Christ said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16). What is the spiritual significance of baptism? It teaches us that we are buried with Christ by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4-5)."

By far, the most important (and longest) primary source by the early Anabaptists which thoroughly explores baptism is the "Admonition of 1542" by Pilgram Marpeck (see Klassen & Klassen, The Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck, Wipf & Stock, 159-272). It is a community statement, itself revising a document from 1533. Marpeck makes a strong case for our position and not your "faith alone" view. While it is a longer piece, the interested reader would do well to read the full document as it devastates your claims. Marpeck contends that baptism is the normal entry point into salvation, "Baptism is a door, an entrance into the holy church, and this is certainly the narrow gate of which Christ speaks" (199). Baptism is how we are “joined to Him [God] in Christ” and where “rebirth” occurs (176-177). "The bath is baptism, in which the believers are sanctified in Christ, and in the power of faith, they are totally cleansed" (200). While Sword & Trumpet dissociates salvation from baptism, the early Anabaptists joined it. "Baptism is a superbly earnest matter which pertains even to our salvation" (217, italics original). “People, through faith and baptism, become children of God and are children of God as long as they continue faithfully to the end; in no other manner, neither here nor in the beyond, can anyone be called a child of God. For being a child of God not only includes birth through the Word in faith and baptism, but also the agony and pain of flesh and blood” (211, italics original). Marpeck elsewhere wrote, "All those who are so minded and confess as much should be baptized, and so the forgiveness of sins is certainly obtained in baptism" (Jurgen-Goertz, The Anabaptists, 80).

More importantly, your position departs from the early church, consisting of native Greek speakers who read the NT in their native language and had much closer proximity to apostolic practice. In addition, they had the advantage of not having artificial chapter and verse divisions that can impair good exegesis. We have an overwhelming amount of support for our position from the early church. See David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs entry on "Baptism" and his CD "What the Early Christians Believed about Baptism." Indeed it was only the heretical Gnostics who held to your position. Our "bias" is not from the Churches of Christ--but if we did hold a bias, it would be to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. It would be very surprising if your view, the Gnostic position, were correct, and that the orthodox church everywhere lost the correct teaching on baptism.

Hence you have departed from the simplicity of Scripture, the historic position of the early church, and the early Anabaptists in favor of Zwinglian and Protestant systems. We urge you to return to the simplicity of Scripture, not dismissing uncomfortable verses but cheerfully embracing them, and thus return to the unity of the historic faith.

Hence you have departed from the simplicity of Scripture, the historic position of the early church, and the early Anabaptists in favor of Zwinglian and Protestant systems. We urge you to return to the simplicity of Scripture, not dismissing uncomfortable verses but cheerfully embracing them, and thus return to the unity of the historic faith.

---

Follow Up Letter from Nolan Martin
January 31, 2022

Thanks again for your response. I will be responding briefly to some of the parts related to my first letter, and then other brothers from the Sword & Trumpet board will expand the conversation.

We have several things in common in our views. We agree that faith must precede baptism. We also would join you in opposing the “easy-believism” so prevalent in modern churches which teaches that saving faith can exist alone without repentance from sin, obedience, or good works. We would clarify that this “fruit of faith,” though ever-present in the life of a believer, does not contribute to salvation. We also affirm your position that “no human work earns salvation.”

We find it hard to reconcile, however, your language surrounding baptism with this statement. It sounds contradictory to say “no human work earns salvation” and to say that believers are regenerated and their sins are remitted in baptism. Yes, we must put forth our hand to receive a gift, but is it still a gift if we are required to first perform a ritual such as fifty jumping jacks? In your analogy, it seems baptism would be more akin to a ritual such as this that must be performed prior to the reception of the gift.

The issue also remains about what to do with the many verses where only faith is named as a means to salvation. You answer this problem by saying NT writers used “faith” as a synecdoche (shorthand) for a package of required means to salvation. While we allow for the possible use of synecdoche and other literary devices in Scripture, we don’t believe this view holds up to scrutiny in this case.

First, for synecdoche to work as a literary device, what it stands for must be well-established. If I say, “Take a look at my new set of wheels,” most English speakers would understand that I’m using “wheels” as a synecdoche. All who understood this would comprehend that “wheels” was synecdoche for the entire vehicle. This is not the case with “faith.” Not only is there little evidence that “faith” is being used as synecdoche, what it would stand for is highly debatable since the Bible nowhere enumerates it.

Second, you could argue that what “faith” stood for was well-established in the minds of original readers. We doubt this. Numerous times in the gospel of John, Jesus teaches that those who believe on Him would have everlasting life without mentioning baptism. Christian baptism had not even been introduced at that time. The original hearers would not possibly have understood that Jesus was speaking in shorthand and actually meant that baptism was also a required means to salvation.

Further, in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians where salvation is a major theme, baptism is hardly mentioned. In Ephesians, for example, baptism is mentioned once (4:5), and the context is not related to salvation. It seems quite forced, therefore, to say that Ephesians 2:8 should really be read as, “For by grace are ye saved through faith, baptism, etc…” To us this seems a departure from the simplicity of Scripture.

Third, Paul strongly opposed those who sought to place the ritual of circumcision on par with faith as a requirement to complete salvation. It would be strange for him to teach that God had replaced circumcision with a new ceremony by which to make Christ’s work effectual. It would contradict his message to the Galatians if he really meant for “and baptism” to be inserted into “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:26)

We solve the issue this way. Jesus meant exactly what he said in John 3:15, “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Works such as baptism which are sometimes named in connection to salvation are necessary results of this saving faith but are not means to salvation.

In closing, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice is the grounds for our salvation. Faith is the means to salvation. Baptism is a necessary response to faith. We believe those waiting in line to be baptized on the day of Pentecost were already saved because Jesus had died, and they had believed. This they proved by getting in line to identify with Jesus through water baptism.

---

Third Letter from Sword and Trumpet Ministries
Julian Stoltzfus and Paul Emerson, January 31, 2022

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion with us. It seems you aren’t quite clear on what we believe. Many of your critiques, while potentially valid in other situations, simply don’t apply here. What follows is a concise explanation of the issues you have misunderstood and have consequently misdiagnosed.

You describe our belief as being the result of “slicing out individual verses from the Scriptures” to prove our point. We could, with equal veracity, apply the same to you if we desired. But that simply isn’t the point. We are attempting to take a comprehensive look at salvation as described in Scripture. A magnitude of New Testament texts speak of salvation as being received through faith, not contingent on anything we do. (cf. Acts 9:17-18, 10:44-48; Romans 3:21-26, 4:3; 4:9-12, 5:1, 10:9-13; Galatians 2:14-16, 3:5-9, 3:17, 5:1-6; Ephesians 2:4-9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:10-14; 1 Peter 1:3-5, 3:21; 1 John 1:9). Since Scripture frequently promises salvation apart from the work of baptism, we conclude that baptism, while significant, is not essential to the experience of salvation. It is the essential first step of faith, but it flows from it rather than producing it. All Christian obedience is, in fact, necessary to demonstrate our salvation, but works cannot save, nor do they contribute, nor do they keep us. We are saved by the merits of Christ and kept by His grace. Baptism, like all worshipful works, does not save us. Yet it must be present alongside all true faith. Menno Simons concurs:

Those who believe receive remission of sins, not through baptism but in baptism, and in this manner. Since they now sincerely believe the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ which has been preached and taught to them, the glad tidings of grace; namely, of the remission of sin, of grace, of peace, of favor, of mercy, and of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord; so they become a new mind, deny themselves, bitterly lament their old corrupted life, and look diligently to the Word of God, who has shown them such great love, to fulfill all that which He has taught and commanded them in His holy Gospel; trusting firmly in the word of grace, in the remission of their sins through the crimson blood and through the merits of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

They therefore receive the holy baptism as a token of obedience which proceeds from faith, as proof before God and His church that they firmly believe in the remission of their sins through Jesus Christ as it was preached and taught them from the Word of God.[1]

And we could provide more quotes. But that aside, we refuse to allow that faith alone is such a minor theme in Scripture. While you are correct that a word-search for “faith alone” produces few results, that’s just poor exegesis. By that same test, the Trinity too would be eradicated. A good biblical framework results from more than just word studies and verse studies but also gleans from the grand themes of Scripture, salvation by faith alone being one of them.

This brings us to a second clarification. You charge that we believe repentance is also a work, that we make faith and repentance necessary works while excluding water baptism. First of all, there is a clear distinction between faith and repentance, which are internally realized, and water baptism, which is an external ordinance. But more important is our understanding of what faith and repentance are. Are these something we do, or are they perhaps the end of all works? Saving faith is not something we do as much as it is the end of doing. Faith is surrender. Repentance, likewise, is recognition of our belligerent sinfulness. It is the end of living for self; not a work done to receive salvation, but the submission of our wills to the Lord’s. Faith and repentance, being spiritually realized after an encounter with the Word of God, can hardly be paralleled with water baptism.

Third, we want to emphasize that we do not believe water baptism is optional. You say we are separating baptism from salvation; we say again that we are not. As outlined above, it is commanded and must be done. It is the first step of faith, is a necessary step of faith, and to refuse baptism is to refuse identification with God’s people. Those who want to claim the benefits of the gospel but refuse baptism are not to be counted as believers. Clearly such a person has not yet yielded his will (in faith and repentance) to the Lord. Yet is water baptism the doorway into the kingdom? We think not. Rather, it is the first expected fruit of the regenerated heart. It is a necessary result of salvation, but it in no way contributes to it, just as works must result from salvation but are ineffectual to save us.

Regarding Acts 22:16, we note that you did not quote the entire sentence. As the NKJV translates it, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Grammatically, “wash away your sins” is more closely connected to “calling on the name of the Lord” than it is to “be baptized.” Thus we understand that the washing comes through faith in Christ and is only represented in baptism. The fact that water baptism is sometimes concurrent with salvation does not necessarily mean that it is a vehicle for salvation. The clarity of other Scriptures leads us to believe that, while baptism is significant, it is not fundamental to salvation. With this understanding, yes, we would be quite comfortable using it with someone who has just professed faith. But we would use it only with due explanation that water baptism does not save us. Faith in the Lord saves us.

We were disappointed to see you equivalate our question “What do you believe is the salvation status of believers who desire baptism but die prior to baptism?” with the question “How disobedient can we possible be and still be saved?” You missed the entire point of our question. Quite obviously, this person is not living in rebellion against God. Our question for you is, if God honors “the baptism of desire,” is baptism truly essential to salvation? This is not an issue in our soteriology, but it is in yours.

Another issue. You repeatedly dismiss our claims as being Protestant, but we have yet to appeal to a single Protestant writer. Indeed, our appeal has been repeatedly to Scripture, with support from the early Anabaptists. Since you have mis-labeled our view, you ascribe beliefs to us that we do not hold. As we have emphasized repeatedly, Scripture often offers salvation to those of faith, with no mention of baptism. If we begin by searching the Scriptures for “baptism,” we find that faith is always a requirement for baptism. Yet if we search for faith, baptism is not always a requirement for faith. Assuming water baptism is in view every time faith is mentioned is unsatisfactory.

You have rejected our Anabaptist quotations because they were written in the context of infant baptism. We fail to see how that invalidates the truth of their words in this situation. They are countering the false practice of infant baptism, but in so doing they describe quite clearly their view of baptism. We would counter that your quotations are not definitive since they make no mention of the relationship between faith and baptism. The quotations we have provided, previously and in this article, make it clear that they did not see baptism as the vehicle of salvation. But even if they were unified in favor of baptismal regeneration, we would be compelled to reject their view in favor of the clear teachings of Scripture, just as they rejected the heresies of the Catholic church in favor of what they discovered in the written word of God.

Regarding the early church, we believe there is some value in consulting their works. But only some. While it is possible to construe them as being the pure church, they were also an infant church, newly exposed to Christianity and still discovering truth. Add to that the fact that much of the New Testament was still being accumulated and we conclude that we must be cautious about relying too heavily on them for any essential doctrine. And, as just mentioned, we are inclined to agree with the Scriptures over and above all writings of men. Much can be learned from the great men of history. Yet nothing must gain preeminence over—or equivalence to—the inspired, inerrant, sufficient Scriptures.

While you have argued that salvation is by grace alone and baptism is merely the means of salvation, we find this unsatisfactory. Requiring baptism as a prerequisite for salvation does, in fact, make it a work necessary for salvation. Functionally, it is salvation by faith plus works. Faith and repentance are not works but are the submission of our works to Christ’s perfection, of our will to His will, of our eternal destinies to His mercy and grace.

Regarding your own interpretation of Scripture, we find that many of the Scriptures you cite as definitively teaching salvation through baptism are not so conclusive. I’ll give two examples. First, Titus 3:5-6. “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”[2] Your interpretation of this passage indicates that the washing of regeneration is here a reference to water baptism. But the word loutron (“washing”) occurs only one other time in the New Testament, that in Ephesians 5:25-26; “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.” Notice that the washing happens by means of the word, not by means of baptism. Returning to the text in Titus, we also see that this washing happens by the Spirit. This refers to our experience of regeneration, accomplished by the Spirit at our salvation (concurrent with our repentance and faith) and not necessarily at the moment of our water baptism. Nothing in this text points us toward water baptism. Rather, we should see this as referring to our spiritual baptism, that which water baptism represents. To say water baptism is the means by which the Spirit regenerates turns this passage on its head. Not only that, it departs from that which has just been said. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” Regeneration and spiritual renewal are the application of God’s mercy to our hearts.

Secondly, 1 Peter 3:21: “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God).” In your view, Peter’s parenthetical clarification emphasizes that baptism is effectual only for believers. Yet he specifically references the removal of the filth of the flesh. It seems far better to understand this to be Peter’s own clarification that water baptism is not what he has in view, but rather the baptism of the Spirit. The answer of a good conscience (meaning, “faith”) is what saves. Water baptism is of no value to cleanse us from sin.

If I could zoom out a bit, I am curious what your understanding of the gospel is. If baptism is essential to salvation, what about other works? It seems your soteriology is somewhat synergistic. Your approach to the sacraments (which we call ordinances) and your emphasis on staying close to Jesus seem to stem from a belief that God’s offer of salvation is contingent on our continued obedience. Most notable is your statement, “The extent to which I am close to Jesus is the extent to which I am saved.” What then becomes of the believer who fails? When we knowingly choose sin, is our salvation compromised? Are we more saved or more lost based on how faithful we’ve been today? You fail to distinguish between the basis of our relationship (Christ’s merit) and the current state of our relationship. Using the example of marriage, am I more or less married when I’m closer or farther away from my wife? Or is the relationship based on something more stable than that? While relationship is vitally important in both marriage and in our relationships with Christ, does a moment, a day, a season of struggle nullify the entire relationship?

True faith will always produce works; on that Scripture is clear. We don’t believe that a Christian can persist in sin, nor will he love to sin. Yet we also believe that we will all deal with sin in some measure on this side of eternity. Where does that fit in your soteriology? If my salvation is initiated by something I do, what becomes of me when I don’t do what I should? Is my security in Christ based on how well I have performed today? Surely it is based on something more sure, more stable. I invite your interaction on this.

A final word of admonition. Our concern is not so much to straighten what we see as the kinks in your theology. Our desire is that, in practice, you continue to lead people to Christ for salvation and not to confidence in themselves. We are aware of times your view of baptism has resulted in telling people they simply need to be re-baptized for their spiritual problems to be solved. Yet what they need is genuine faith in Christ and a spiritual transformation. That transformation cannot be accomplished by any work of man. If indeed their confidence in salvation is in Christ alone—not in their water baptism—much of our concern would be abated. Yet it is difficult for us to understand how an emphasis on faith in Christ can converge with your emphasis on salvation through baptism. We anticipate your response.

Footnotes:

[1] The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1984), 244.

[2] All Scripture quotations are from the NKJV

---

Final Letter from Followers of the Way
June 21, 2022

Thank you for your gracious responses. In this final essay, we will conclude by addressing 1) historical 2) methodological 3) biblical and 4) pastoral concerns.

Historical Concerns

We are grateful that you acknowledge that the early church would have not accepted your view on baptism. Your position, which is close to the Gnostic position, was regarded as heretical. As you said, it is possible that the entirety of the orthodox church could have been mistaken, but this is at least a significant argument against your view.

We want to restate that the early Anabaptists would have rejected your view. Your view is closer to Zwingli’s view which divides inner and outer baptism–something that the early Anabaptists fought. The Anabaptists argued for the unity of “inner” spiritual and “outer” water baptism. Speaking about Marpeck’s view of water baptism and Spirit baptism, an Anabaptist historian from Germany writes, “The two actions were synchronized. Marpeck consequently succeeded in overcoming, by direct assault, a spiritualist or mystical dualism which divided baptism into a divine reality and a natural sign, and he was able to protect the salvific effect of water-baptism: ‘thus in Christ there is no longer sign, only being: one baptism, one faith, one God, father of us all.’ ” (Jurgen-Goertz, The Anabaptists, 80-81). One could not separate what was happening inwardly in the heart and outwardly in the water as described by texts like Romans 6:1-4 and Gal 3:27. By faith, something real is happening inwardly at baptism, though our eyes may not perceive it. While your system is oriented at splitting and dividing like Zwingli, the early Anabaptists saw unity. Your treatment of 1 Peter 3:21 exemplifies your non-Anabaptist and Zwinglian approach where you wrote, “It seems far better to understand this to be Peter’s own clarification that water baptism is not what he has in view, but rather the baptism of the Spirit.” Historic Anabaptist exegesis saw one baptism with different united aspects (outward water baptism and inward Spirit baptism). The early church and early Anabaptists united the inner and outer. The Gnostics and Zwingli divided them. Your methodology, that of dualism, is thus antithetical to early Anabaptist exegesis.

While outside the scope of our discussion, the Anabaptists also emphasized an ongoing baptism of blood or suffering which marked the true people of God. The salvific concepts of baptism in water, Spirit, and blood loomed large in the early Anabaptist churches in ways that have long since faded among the modern Anabaptists. There is much profit in reading extended treatments of adult baptism like The Admonition of 1542 to adequately understand their views.

Thus we were disappointed with the quality and depth of your Anabaptist citations. On Michael Sattler, you cited one line: “Infant baptism is not required for salvation.” That line is irrelevant for the debate as we also reject infant baptism. Why you rely on discussion of infant baptism and not the relevant and more rich writings on adult baptism where faith is present is baffling. Our view of the early Anabaptist position is the consensus of careful historians and translators of their complete writings from the original languages. The great historian of Michael Sattler, C. Arnold Snyder, summarizes Sattler’s position as, “baptism is necessary for salvation.” Since your view is out of consensus, the burden is on you to show that the historians and translators are incorrect in their synthesis of the early Anabaptists. Scattered, out-of-context snippets will not suffice. We believe that the quotes we furnished in our last response are compelling on their own merits. Would you agree with Marpeck that "forgiveness of sins is certainly obtained in baptism"? Or with Conrad Grebel who said, "Baptism is for those who want to better themselves, take on a new life, die to immorality, get buried with Christ and rise out of baptism to newness of life"? Would you agree with the early Anabaptists who call baptism the "rebirth" or "narrow gate of which Christ speaks"?

Also, you did not rebut the traditional Anabaptist exegesis of Romans 6:1-4, probably the most beloved baptismal text of the early Anabaptists. It was used by Grebel, Sattler, Marpeck, and the Elbing-Waldeck confession. This is a glaring omission. Article I of the Schleitheim Confession states that the promises of Romans 6 are realized in baptism for those who have faith. While you may disagree with the Schleitheim confession, you should distance your position from the early Anabaptists as you have from the early church. Our thesis is that of the early Anabaptists’: By faith, in baptism we are buried with Christ into death and raised to a new life. A challenge to your readers is to read Romans 6:1-4, take it as face value, and ask, “What exactly is Paul saying happens at baptism?” Then carefully read our previous citations of the early Anabaptists (Schleitheim Confession, Grebel, Elbing-Waldeck Confession) contained in our second response. We are confident that the weight of historical evidence is in our favor.

Because your position breaks with the early church and the early Anabaptists, you state that what finally matters is agreement with the Scriptures. Since your position breaks with the historic faith, your exegesis needs to be accurate and sharp in order to be persuasive. We will address that after methodological concerns.

Methodological Concerns

We have stated that your methodology and conclusions have a Protestant quality, which accords with the Gnostic-Zwinglian principles so common today. Though you are correct that you did not cite specific Protestant authors, the slogans and principles you employed are signatures of Protestant thought. Many of us at Followers of the Way have a Protestant background, so it is easier to detect Protestant theology for us than it is for Anabaptists. The phrase “faith alone” (sola fide) was one of the main slogans of the Protestant Reformation which you have used and advocated. We pointed out that the expression “faith alone” is explicitly frowned upon in the book of James. We continue to urge you to use approved biblical terms and not lift up the man-made slogans of the Protestants. Though you correctly said that the expression is only rebuked once, shouldn’t one time be enough for the child of God with a sensitive conscience?

Similarly you object that our salvation model is “synergistic.” We trust that you wrote this out of historical ignorance, but synergism is a keyword used to describe the salvation schemes of the non-Calvinists, such as the Arminians and Anabaptists. Those who have typically attacked synergism are the Calvinists, who instead favor monergism. Calvin himself attacked Anabaptist theology in similar ways that you object to ours. Again, we trust that you did this out of ignorance, but your vocabulary is strikingly Calvinist. There is a common but tragic irony in that the modern Anabaptists now object to the salvation systems of the early Anabaptists in favor of Protestant systems.

One of the other telltale signs of Protestant theology is the strong emphasis on categories that put artificial boundaries where Scripture puts none (salvation comes from faith alone, not from repentance or baptism; we do nothing in salvation and God does everything, etc.). Finally, there is a tendency to use Paul over and against Jesus that we have observed in your writings. Your responses employ the slogans, terms, and patterns of Protestants. Much of modern Anabaptism has become Protestant, so this is not a surprise to us that Sword & Trumpet has similarly become more Protestant in its theology. We want to raise awareness of a drift back to Gnostic and Protestant systems among the modern Anabaptists, who should prefer to adhere to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

You objected that having baptism as a part of salvation-initiation is a work and might feel like doing 50 jumping jacks, thus nullifying the picture you have of salvation-entry being a gift. This analogy breaks down. When Moses climbed Mt Sinai (no small feat for a man of 80 years old), he received the Torah. By climbing Mt Sinai, did Moses earn the Torah–or was it a gift? In fact, there may be difficult conditions attached to gifts. Jesus says, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate” (Luke 13:24) and “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14). Even if you continue to disregard early Anabaptist texts that treat the gate as baptism, surely the vocabulary of doing and difficulty cannot be missed. The rich young ruler would surely have preferred jumping jacks to selling his possessions! Again, we feel that your mistake is that you have omitted the consideration of verses that speak of effort, diligence, and difficulty in receiving salvation. What if the “believing” of John 3:16 contained the concepts of repentance, fidelity, striving, and perseverance? While we both agree that salvation is a gift, our conclusion is that the conditions of this gift may not be easy from a human perspective.

Regarding our appeal to synecdoche, our thesis is that the biblical writers often use shorthand in their writing and that one term often implies or contains other concepts that may not be explicitly stated. When Jesus says that he has come to call “sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), does he mean that he is not calling them to faith? Of course not. We find your reading of Scripture to lack sensitivity to the normal patterns of language that Scripture employs. Many passages speak of repentance procuring salvation, other passages of faith procuring salvation, and still others of baptism procuring salvation. The most reasonable synthesis is that faith, repentance, and baptism are components of a package that leads to eternal life.

You defined works as something we do. It seems that you are trying to separate salvation from anything we do. Yet in Luke 10, when someone asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life, Jesus refers to “love God” and “love neighbor” and says: “Do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28). Note the word “do” in his statement. While entry into your system of salvation has no place for “doing,” Jesus’ teaches that inheriting eternal life requires doing. (Loving God and neighbor are positive statements of repentance.) This kind of language is supported elsewhere (Matthew 7:21, Mark 10:21, Romans 2:7, John 5:28-29). We contend that it is dangerous to impose tidy and artificial categories where Scripture does not employ them. Protestant theology is dependent on man-made systems that are foisted on Scripture, even when the fit may be forced. We fear that this is the error you have fallen into. It is evident that you have a pre-commitment to a monergistic salvation scheme where if humans do anything, then it nullifies salvation. Jesus teaches the opposite. We are challenging those “glasses” that you bring to Scripture that devalue contrary texts. Even one Scripture that ties doing (including repentance or baptism) to salvation-initiation should be enough to falsify your system. Considering the classic passage of counting the cost (Luke 14:26-33), isn’t that something that we do before receiving salvation? Even if it were a purely mental exercise, wouldn’t this entail human effort? To be clear, we both agree that none of this earns salvation. But we maintain that repentance and counting the cost are conditions of salvation, commands that humans do.

You state that repentance is not a work, not something we do, but rather “the submission of our wills to God.” While it certainly includes submitting our wills, repentance cannot be separated from doing. When Jesus asked the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, he was commanding repentance as a work–something he needed to do. True, it included a mental disposition–but was not merely that. Your definitions that artificially split are more Gnostic than Judeo-Christian. Even the word “faith” (pistis in Greek) is identical to the word for faithfulness (e.g. Gal 5:23). For native Greek speakers, you could not separate faith from faithfulness. Pastorally, these split definitions have contributed to much of the complacency and laxity of our age. (We of course acknowledge that you did not create these definitions or want laxity, but you are repeating what perpetuates the problem.)

As we stated previously, baptism is actually not something that we do, but something done to us. It is used in the passive voice. If one accepts that repentance is a requirement for salvation and cannot be separated from human effort, then accepting biblical baptism as a requirement for the forgiveness of sins should be even easier.

Next, we find that you fail to attend enough to sequence in the biblical passages that describe the unfolding of salvation. (There may be exceptions, but we are striving to understand normative NT practice.) Consider the following Scriptures:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved. [a very popular text among the early Anabaptists on baptism]

Mark 16:16

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:37-38

There are two conditions, repentance and baptism, in order to receive two gifts, remission of sins and the Holy Spirit. [Note that the Holy Spirit also came upon Jesus as a dove after his baptism.]

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 22:16

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:27

...Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death...

Romans 6:1-4

Of course, the sequence is self-evident. Only the historic view on baptism accords with these verses.

You asked how baptism can be required for salvation and yet have martyrs saved before the opportunity for baptism. Baptism has been called a “relative necessity” while faith an “absolute necessity.” A relative necessity is dependent on the ability to meet the condition. For example, if I stole money, I should restore that money as part of repentance and receiving salvation. (Such an act of repentance prompted Jesus to pronounce salvation over Zaccheus.) But what if the other party has died or you have forgotten where the theft occurred? Is it impossible to be saved? Of course not. We are simply to do our best. Repentance and baptism are both relative necessities–required if it is possible to perform them, but in extreme cases, they may not be possible. Thankfully, God’s mercy saves us despite limitations of circumstance.

Returning to the topic of “faith alone,” it is thus a terribly unhelpful and misguided expression because it minimizes the relative necessities of repentance and baptism. Besides “faith alone” being condemned in Scripture, it has done much eternal ruin to souls over the centuries. Our thesis continues to be that these three concepts–faith, repentance, and baptism–are components of a package that brings one into the kingdom. Faith is the centerpiece, but it is by no means alone. You instead have advocated faith alone, despite the numerous Scriptures that portray repentance as necessary for salvation and baptism as the final step in salvation-initiation.

Finally, while adopting Protestant methodology and beliefs, you caricature Protestant teaching by saying, “Protestants teach salvation by faith without works, the Anabaptists teach salvation by faith that works.” No respected Protestant teacher from Calvin to today would agree with your characterization of their beliefs. “Faith that works” is in fact standard Protestant teaching, and an expression they coined. We would urge you to more carefully study both Protestant and Anabaptist history.

Biblical Concerns

You are in the unenviable position of disagreeing with native speakers of the language (the early church) on how to interpret their mother tongue. It is akin to Americans telling Chinese people what their Chinese texts really mean. We should have great humility in this endeavor, especially in handling English translations.

Your handling of Acts 22:16 illustrates the problems with your interpretation. The sentence in Greek is literally, “Arising [participle], be baptized [imperative] and wash away [imperative] your sins, calling [participle] on the name of the Lord.” Participles in Greek typically elaborate on or add meaning to the main verbs of the sentence. There are two coordinate imperatives in the sentence: be baptized and wash away your sins. Those are the heart of the sentence! The arising and calling are elaborations of those imperatives. The participles could even be dropped and the sentence remains grammatically valid. Crucially, you again fail to heed the sequence in the text: baptism precedes, or is at least simultaneous with, the washing away of sins in this verse–something that you deny. To fit your system, the text should read, “Because your sins were washed away by calling on the name of the Lord, arise and be baptized.” This is precisely the opposite of what this text teaches (as well as Acts 2:38).

Your handling of Titus 3:5-6 similarly manifests weak exegesis. You are correct that the word for washing there is loutron. In Greek λου (English lou) is a root that is close to our English word wash. But just as any native English speaker would instantly see in the words “unwashed,” “prewash,” and “washing” that “wash” was contained in those words, someone who didn’t know English but just doing a mechanical search for the bare word “wash” would miss that wash was found in words like “unwashed.” You claimed that this word loutron was only found in Ephesians 5:21-22 and not connected to baptism. You will be astonished to learn that your search missed that Acts 22:16 (“be baptized and wash away your sins”) contains that same root word! The word for “wash away” is apolousai. Apo-lou-sai: It is prefixed by a preposition, apo, which means away, then lou for wash, and followed by an imperative suffix, sai. Computer searches will naturally miss this. In English, this means something like wash away. No native Koine Greek speaker would have made such an error. This is why the native Greek speakers saw such coherence in these baptism texts–their fluency brought tight linkages of texts.

We are not faulting you for your lack of knowledge of Greek, but we are appealing for humility as you challenge the native Greek speakers of the early church with their own language. We hear statements like this all the time that come from sincerity but are still rooted in an ignorance that could be corrected with intense, multi-year study of the biblical languages–or more reliance on the historic faith. It is incredibly dangerous to be armed with Strong’s concordance or search tools with an agenda—without deeply knowing the languages and being able to comfortably read the New Testament in Greek without translation.

We now respond to your objection that the Gospel of John’s statements about faith could never have been interpreted to include baptism. Very early in John, Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The church believed for more than a thousand years that this was a reference to baptism. “Water and spirit” were used earlier in the book by John the Baptist in the context of baptism. Clinching this interpretation, immediately after Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, the disciples go out and baptize (John 3:22). So John presents very early in his gospel that baptism is a requirement for salvation. It thus informs later presentations on faith and salvation.

You said that baptism doesn’t appear in Romans, Galatians, or Ephesians. But see Romans 6:1-4 and Galatians 3:27. These are some of Paul’s most important texts on baptism and are placed in particularly important places in those letters. And in Ephesians 2:8, is your position that repentance is not required for salvation? We presume that you believe repentance is a requirement for salvation–so you must be reading “For by grace you are saved through faith and repentance…” Why does that not violate the simplicity of Scripture?

Pastoral Concerns

You stated a concern that in our pointing people to baptism we were not pointing people to Jesus. A common error in Protestant theology is that one can dissociate Jesus from His commands. When advocating the headcovering, we have often heard in Protestant settings, “Why teach or observe this? We have Jesus.” Your argument is no different. We instead advocate that Jesus cannot be separated from His teachings. To see this in action, examine Acts 8:35-36, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Note how preaching Jesus elicited the response of baptism! We thus advocate that Jesus cannot be separated from His words or teaching. Might your critique come from a mystical Jesus apart from His words? Because Jesus commanded baptism, we honor Him by teaching the significance of baptism.

This is not to say that baptism cannot be overemphasized. It certainly can. Apart from faith and repentance, baptism is an empty rite. There have been groups in history that have not put sufficiently balanced weight on the triumvirate of faith, repentance, and baptism. Our concern is that modern Anabaptists have lost the importance of baptism, copying Protestants in juvenile baptisms before adequate repentance can take place. This grieves the Holy Spirit. It also takes people away from the face-value reading of Scriptures, which then undermines confidence in the Scriptures as a whole. It also distances churches from the historic faith. In our age of individualism and effort devoid of the Spirit, these are important pastoral concerns as well.

In conclusion, we sincerely thank you for this opportunity to present the historic view of baptism in a charitable and open manner. We recommend that your audience simply read all of the Scriptures on baptism as if you were reading them for the first time–especially John 3:3-8 in context, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-4, Col 2:12, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, and 1 Peter 3:21. Do not subordinate those texts to a theology or system, but revere them as the word of God and integrate their face-value meaning into understanding of salvation. We then recommend that people read the Schleitheim Confession, Marpeck’s Admonition of 1542, Peter Hoover’s chapter in Secret of the Strength on the early Anabaptist position on baptism, listen to David Bercot’s material on baptism, and seek God for wisdom. May God give us humility to understand His will from Scripture and from His faithful saints throughout the ages.

---

Final Letter from Sword and Trumpet Ministries
Julian Stoltzfus, September 29, 2022

Thanks again for your interaction on this important issue. What follows is a summary response to a number of the issues you raised in your final letter.

Response to Historical Concerns

You begin by saying that you are grateful that we “acknowledge that the early church would not have accepted our view on baptism.” I was unable to find where we said that or anything like that. The closest we came to that is to say that “we must be cautious about relying too heavily on the early church for any essential doctrine.” We do not discount the early church, but we urge that their teachings be taken alongside proper biblical exegesis and consideration of the historical church consensus. The early church leaders were often correct, but they are not infallible.

Similarly, you quote us as thinking that “it is possible that the entirety of the orthodox church is mistaken,” indicating that we would prefer our view over the orthodox Christian view. Arguing for baptismal regeneration as the orthodox view only works if you only accept as orthodox those views which agree with you. If the qualifier for orthodoxy is agreement with your view, then yes, it could be said that the entirety of the orthodox church taught baptismal regeneration. But that is untenable.

You also say that “the early Anabaptists would have rejected our view.” We disagree that there was an early consensus. You previously stated your agreement; “To be sure, the Anabaptists were a diverse, dynamic movement and did not all speak uniformly on the topic.” Now you indicate that they were unified, but that is far from the case. In fact, the quotes we have provided from Menno Simons, Michael Sattler, and Conrad Grebel all show that there were at least some who opposed baptismal regeneration. The Dordrecht and Schleitheim confessions, the two major early Anabaptist confessions, both place baptism after salvation, indicating that baptismal regeneration was a minority view from the start. You quote heavily from Pilgram Marpeck, but history reveals that Marpeck lost the argument to Menno Simons and Conrad Grebel. It is their view that has been passed down. By 1632, Anabaptists had clearly rejected baptismal regeneration. The Dordrecht Confession of Faith which was published that year shows that the authors believed baptism was to be administered to someone who was already saved and regenerated. Here is Article VII:

Concerning baptism we confess that penitent believers, who, through faith, regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, are made one with God, and are written in heaven, must, upon such Scriptural confession of faith, and renewing of life, be baptized with water, in the most worthy name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the command of Christ, and the teaching, example, and practice of the apostles, to the burying of their sins, and thus be incorporated into the communion of the saints; henceforth to learn to observe all things which the Son of God has taught, left, and commanded His disciples.

The Dordrecht position is ours. (1) Baptism is for those who believe, are regenerated, and filled with the Holy Spirit. (2) Those who have experienced these things must be baptized in obedience to the command of Christ. (3) Baptism is an initiation into the “communion of the saints,” into church fellowship. (4) Discipleship must follow faith, repentance, regeneration, and baptism.

See then the distinction between inward washing and outward. The blessings of the gospel are for those who believe and are regenerated. Baptism is described as a subsequent ordinance applied to those who have already experienced the washing of the Spirit in regeneration. But while the inward and outward washings must be distinguished, they may not be separated. Just as works always follow genuine faith (James 2), so baptism always follows salvation. None can claim submission to Christ without obeying the command to be baptized. We must, however, distinguish between the results of salvation and the means of salvation.

You say this is dualism. We do not see how our making proper biblical distinctions warrants the charge of dualism. This is not our distinction but Scripture’s. We likewise distinguish the physical and spiritual elements of communion. We do not, by taking the bread and wine, experience the grace of the gospel in greater measure. Rather, we do it “in remembrance” as our Lord instructed. In no way does that excuse our neglect of His command. Communion is not an optional exercise. But it is commemorative, not salvific.

You take issue with the “quality and depth of our Anabaptist citations.” We have quoted directly from Simons, Sattler, and Grebel from places where their views are quite clear. Above I have quoted the Dordrecht, written by a Dutch Mennonite conference. It is recognized as one of the staple confessions of the Anabaptist movement. The Sattler quote, which you truncated to “Infant baptism is not required for salvation” is more correctly quoted as “Infant baptism is of no avail to salvation; for it is written, that we live by faith alone.” His argument against infant baptism was anchored squarely in his broader understanding that baptism is for those who believe. That is, faith is a condition for baptism and precedes it. As he says, “we live by faith,” indicating that faith is the requirement for salvation, not baptism.

Menno, likewise, says that “[believers] receive the holy baptism as a token of obedience which proceeds from faith, and proof before God and His church that they firmly believe in the remission of their sins through Jesus Christ.” The full context and quote is in our previous letter. How can you argue that his use of “token of obedience” ought really to mean “vehicle of salvation”?

We disagree with Marpeck in his statement “forgiveness of sins is certainly obtained in baptism.” We think Menno, Grebel, and Sattler would as well. Your quote from Grebel does not at all refute that baptism is a sign. Baptism is for those who want those things in the list (better themselves, take on a new life, die to immortality, get buried with Christ, and rise out of baptism to newness of life). This doesn’t mean baptism brings it about.

Romans 6 bears addressing. Indeed, if we parachute into the chapter, the apparent meaning is that it teaches that baptism itself is the means through which we are saved. “We are buried with Him through baptism into death.” But, in proper exegesis, we must take this in context. Romans 3 says that those who are justified are justified by faith. May we understand this “faith” to be a compound reference to faith, repentance, and baptism? Certainly not. The apostle proceeds in chapter 4 to define the kind of faith that saves. In 4:3 he says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Acceptance of God’s promises was all that was required of him.

As we proceed in chapter 4, we find that David too understood salvation to come to those who believe, those of faith who are declared righteous “apart from works.” Paul returns to Abraham, laboring the point that Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness before he was circumcised. God required Abraham to circumcise himself as a sign of his faith, but as Paul says, “Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.” Circumcision—the sign of the covenant—parallels baptism, the New Testament sign. Paul labors to distinguish between faith and circumcision, teaching that faith is the only requirement for salvation.

While you might argue that this argument is irrelevant because Abraham lived before baptism was instituted, that falls flat when you consider that Paul is writing this in the early years of the church. And he clearly says in verse 23-24, “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.” Few portions of Scripture treat faith as exhaustively as Romans 4. Doesn’t it seem likely that if baptism were necessary for salvation, it would get at least one mention? Yet he stresses repeatedly that righteousness is given to those who simply believe.

It is unlikely, then, that Paul would set out to overturn this principle as he moves into chapter 6. In terms of the broad themes of Romans, chapters 1-5 treat sin and justification, chapters 6-8 treat the resulting life-transformation in those who believe. He says in 6:1-2, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not.” He proceeds to describe the life of one who has been changed. His central purpose in chapter 6 is not to describe the way of salvation. He has done that exhaustively in the previous five chapters. Rather, he is speaking of the results of salvation. Thus he speaks of baptism, not in this case as a requirement for salvation, but as illustrating the kind of transformation we experience through the gospel. Baptism pictures our death to self and life to Christ. It is tightly linked to salvation, a point we have endeavored to make more than once. It is significant, potent, and essential. But it is not the gateway to salvation.

You say that “Article I of the Schleitheim Confession states that the promises of Romans 6 are realized in baptism for those who have faith.” Here is the entire article:

Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Mt. 28, Mk. 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance. 

Romans 6 is certainly referenced in the phrase “buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him.” Yet the preceding statements make plain that they expect the one requesting baptism to already have “learned repentance and amendment of life” and to “believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ” and “walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” All of these are descriptors of the true believer. Baptism, then, is not the doorway to these actions, but is the final result, salvation having already been apprehended through faith.

We firmly reject your claim that our position breaks with the early church and the early Anabaptists. It may perhaps be said that your view was entertained alongside ours by the early Anabaptists. To claim it as the prevailing view or the historical view is untenable.

Response to Methodological Concerns

Your first methodological concern pertains to the phrase “faith alone.” The proper use of the phrase does not rest on a singular occurrence; it is a summary of a biblical truth. I refer you to the list of eighteen Scriptures I cited at the beginning of our previous letter. Even those are just the beginning of a cohesive biblical theology of faith. Space does not permit a verse-by-verse exposition of each passage, but we may clearly deduce from these that the apostles believed faith was the only requirement for salvation. The consistent absence of baptism indicates that it is not necessary for the new birth.

It seems we can only go so far in this particular discussion since you are determined to see “faith, repentance, and baptism” everywhere Scripture uses “faith.” We contend that this is an unacceptable interpretation. Can your appeal to synecdoche be stretched to include the numerous passages that cleanly distinguish between faith and works? These include: Acts 10:44-48; Romans 3:21-26, 4:3, 4:9-12, 5:1, 10:9-13; Galatians 2:14-16, 3:5-9, 3:17-18, 5:1-6; Ephesians 2:4-9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:5-7; Hebrews 10:10-14; 1 Peter 1:3-5, 3:21; 1 John 1:9. Space prohibits lengthy exegesis, but we believe these texts give more than sufficient support for our view.

You say we are influenced by Protestantism. Even the early Anabaptists agreed with the Protestants on some level. It could be said that they took Protestant beliefs to their natural conclusion. Disagreement with Protestantism does not an Anabaptist make. Scripture is our only authority, and we do our best to discard any bias for or against Protestantism. In all honesty, it seems to us that you have a bias against Protestantism that is just as blinding as any bias toward it. We do not disavow that we believe things that Protestants also believe. We do disavow that we are culpable of all the failings of Protestantism simply because our beliefs overlap theirs at some level.

True, “artificial boundaries” should have no place. But biblical boundaries must. A diligent student of Scripture will have his beliefs shaped into a coherent, logical system, not in opposition to Scripture but in submission to it. Biblical boundaries are developed by a holistic study of Scripture that seeks to understand broad biblical themes, not just isolated concepts. Methodologically, this is valid and is much what you’ve done in seeking to understand baptism. We are seeking to apply the same method to our understanding of saving faith.

“Protestant theology is dependent on manmade systems that are foisted on Scripture, even when the fit may be forced.” This is sometimes true. Anytime we allow a system to override the clear biblical teaching, we have erred. But as said above, overlap with Protestant theology does not necessarily nullify a truth. A hermeneutic that bows to Protestantism is dangerous. Equally so is one that is anti-Protestant.

Regarding your statement on our use of Paul’s writings: In our estimation, we are not using Paul over and against Jesus in any sense. Paul was Christ’s own apostle, commissioned to testify of Him, to expound His truth, and to explain His teachings. What Jesus spoke while on the earth is of equal authority with what He spoke later through the apostles. They spoke for Him, taught by His Spirit (John 16:14, “The Spirit of truth will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.”). But Jesus’ teachings are not open to just any interpretation. They must be interpreted according to the teaching of those who He himself commissioned to speak on His behalf. Paul speaks Jesus’ truth. If we divide between Paul and Jesus, we have essentially divided God from God, since all Scripture is God-breathed. The inspiration and authority of the Scriptures demand that we recognize that the apostle’s writings have equal authority with Christ’s spoken words. Christ speaks through all of Scripture, whether by the pen of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John or by Paul, Peter, and James.

On the use of the term “synergistic,” I contend that we are justified in using it as we have. Synergism simply speaks of cooperation between two parties. The thing being cooperated on is defined by context. As you have said, the Anabaptists and Arminians describe their soteriology as synergistic, speaking of the way faith is produced. Is it the gift of God, is it produced by man, or is it cooperative? Arminian theology sees faith as produced through the cooperative efforts of God and man. But while Arminian synergism holds that faith is produced synergistically, it all the while holds a clear distinction between man producing faith and him producing good works. Any self-respecting Arminian will distinguish between faith and works, and more specifically between faith and baptism. Arminius himself pointed to faith as the cause of someone’s salvation, without reference to baptism. There is a sharp difference between teaching man’s cooperation in saving faith and teaching man’s contribution to his own salvation.

Arminian synergism holds that faith is produced by the cooperative efforts of God and man. Yet synergism can also be used to describe a system that believes salvation is accomplished through the joint efforts of God and man. This sort of synergism holds that man contributes not only faith but also works to his own salvation. This is our meaning when we use the term to describe your view of the gospel, one that teaches salvation by the joint efforts of God and man and not purely by God’s grace. Synergism in this sense is a gospel of salvation by God’s grace and man’s works. By making baptism a condition of salvation, you have added a work to the gospel. While you have acknowledged that you do not believe baptism adds to our salvation, we have difficulty seeing how making baptism a requirement for salvation does not result in a faith-plus-works salvation scheme.

You argue beyond this, saying that we must love God and love neighbor in order to inherit eternal life. That the rich young ruler had to sell his possessions to receive salvation. And further still that faith and faithfulness are synonymous. This conflation of the means of salvation and the results of salvation is clearly incompatible with the gospel of grace so clearly taught in the New Testament.

We are not of the Protestant opinion that works are an optional addendum, a good idea but not necessary. Yet we are at great pains to distinguish works (anything we do for God) from salvation. Works result. They must. But they in no way contribute to or maintain our salvation. This is the fundamental error in your view of baptism.

Response to Biblical Concerns

Your contention that we are disagreeing with the native Greek speakers (the early church) is problematic for several reasons. (1) Their writings are subject to translation as are the Scriptures. The exact meaning is not always clear. Additionally, their writings have not been preserved with equal accuracy to the Scriptures themselves. (2) Their access to the Scriptures was limited. (3) Their writings are not Spirit-inspired as are the Scriptures. (4) They did not have the benefit of centuries of biblical study and discussion, which, on the main, has refined the church’s understanding of the truth. (5) They do not always agree with the apostles. Ought we platform them while the apostles are silenced?

We do not necessarily disagree with the early church, but we do disagree with your interpretation of them. Many false teachings may be deduced from their writings. It is quite possible to use them to support our own ideas while ignoring those places where they say things that contradict Scripture.

You misquoted us by saying we said, “Baptism doesn’t appear in Romans, Galatians, or Ephesians.” What we said was “In Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, where salvation is a major theme, baptism is hardly mentioned.” Our argument is that baptism is not mentioned enough in connection with faith and salvation in these epistles to establish synecdoche. The nuance of our position, which you have repeatedly neglected, is that repentance and baptism accompany faith, but are not effectual for salvation. That is why they are not listed in Ephesians 2:8; it is not because Paul is using synecdoche.

Response to Pastoral Concerns

Pointing people to Christ involves both requiring obedience to His commands and celebrating what He has accomplished for us through His substitutionary death. In adding works to the gospel, you have in effect minimized Christ’s effectual atonement. He has done all that is necessary for salvation. We need only believe. We are not dissociating Jesus from His commands; rather we are emphasizing the long-held truth that obedience is a fruit of salvation not a means of salvation. We in no way minimize Christ’s commands. We have emphasized this again and again in our letters. We simply recognize that we cannot add to what Christ has done. We don’t work our way to God; we receive what He offers us.

You mention three concerns in your second-to-last paragraph. I would like to respond briefly to each of these. First, you say that modern Anabaptists have lost the importance of baptism. This is true in some cases. In some churches, baptism is administered even though it is questionable whether or not genuine faith is present. We should not baptize where we do not have assurance of faith in the individual being baptized. This requires wisdom on the part of church leaders, wisdom that is often lacking. We too are concerned when children are baptized before they are able to adequately grasp the gospel.

Second, you say that our view takes people away from the face-value reading of Scripture. As we have attempted to show, your face-value reading of certain texts ignores the face-value reading of other texts. Proper exegesis requires considering individual texts in the context of the entire body of Scriptural truth.

Third, you are concerned that we are distancing people from the historical faith. It is illegitimate to call baptismal regeneration the “historical view.” We will not concede that. The only way we can study the history of church belief and conclude that baptismal regeneration has been the prevailing view is to only accept as orthodox and Christian those who interpret Scripture the same way you do. The church has variously understood the significance of baptism. There has not always been a consensus, as we have already shown. It may rightly be said that your view is one of the historical views, but it is certainly not the only view held by Bible-conscious believers. We need to study church history honestly. Above all, we need the Holy Scriptures to be our guide to the truth. May God help us all in that endeavor.