You Can't Handle the Truth!
The knock at my door persisted. I had just gotten out of the shower only a few minutes before so all I had on at the time was a pair of shorts. Glancing through the peep-hole of my front door and seeing a deputy sheriff standing outside helped me to decide that asking him to come back later was probably not a good idea. So I threw on a shirt and opened the door.
The officer standing before me inquired, “Are you David Smith?”
When I had affirmed my identity, he promptly served me with my first-ever subpoena. Before all of you rush to judgment, shake your heads and say to your spouse, “Guess what? They caught him. I think we all saw this coming,” it was not for anything I had done. I was being asked to serve as a witness for the state against a young man I knew somewhat. That is to say, he knew a suspiciously large amount of information about the time our church building was broken into and vandalized.
After getting the subpoena, I began to think about the questions I might be asked, what I might say, and how credible I might seem to the jury. I joked with a friend that I should prepare to blurt out several time-honored lines from the movie, A Few Good Men. I imagined it my mind this way:
Lawyer: “Mr. Smith, how do you know the defendant?”
Me: (with my best Jack Nicholson impersonation) “You want the truth?”
Lawyer: “Uh, yes.”
Me: “You can’t handle the truth!”
Lawyer: “Listen weirdo, do you know him or not?”
Of course, I also imagined that shenanigans like that might not amuse the judge (or anyone else for that matter) and didn’t think a second subpoena—this one to appear for my own “contempt of court” case—would be well-received by my family … not exactly very ministerial of me.
As you might imagine I ultimately decided that all I could really do was to tell the truth. Whether I felt sorry for the young man because of his difficult circumstances or wanted to see him punished for his heinous crimes, the only role I could play in the legal drama was to accurately tell the truth. The judge would not be concerned with my feelings or opinions as much as he would with my testimony of the truth.
It reminded me of the struggle we have in Christianity between so many churches and our differences. For instance, on the subject of baptism, there are a supposed variety of doctrinal positions about what it is for, how to do it, or if it even needs to be done at all. Are all of them right in one way or another? Is one way right and others are wrong? For the record, my belief is that the answer to the former question would be NO and to the latter, YES. I believe that baptism by immersion is essential to my salvation. It is an obedient response to God’s qualifications for a person’s acceptance of the gift of salvation.
I base my belief on Scriptures such as these:
“Therefore let all
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other Apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
--Acts 2:36-38 (NIV)
--Acts 8:12 (NIV)
--Acts 22:16 (NIV)
In him you were also [set apart], in putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised you from the dead.
--Colossians 2:11-12 (NIV)
These passages, along with several others, convince me that I should tell others that an essential part of God’s plan of salvation for mankind includes immersion for the forgiveness of sins.
I realize this belief flies in the face of two predominant thought processes. First, in general, it claims that baptism is fundamentally an obedient response to the ONLY one who can bring salvation to mankind. While this is an admittedly narrow view, it is not my opinion, it is Christ’s declaration: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” –John 14:6 (NIV).
As a Christian, I do not have a many-ways-to-the-same-destination approach to eternity. God’s Word does not allow me to do so. This may offend others, but I must only give testimony to the truth that God’s Word teaches.
Second, in specific, the essentiality of baptism for salvation claims, by inference, that faith without baptism is incomplete and thus, condemns those who have not been baptized. Again, I realize that within the religious community, this makes me seem like somewhat of a theological bigot. What about like-believers who do not claim baptism’s essentiality, those who claim immersion may be a good thing to do, even something we should do in obedience, but is not necessary for salvation? They would point to stories such as the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 who asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” –Acts 16:30 (NIV).
Their simple reply was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved—you and your whole household.” –Acts 16:31 (NIV).
It is a verse, without proper context, that seems to say that belief only is essential for salvation. Upon closer inspection of the context, the text reveals that a few verses later, “[Paul & Silas] spoke the word of Lord to him and to all the others in his house,” and “he and all his family were baptized.”
For us to assume that belief was all that was critical for salvation means we would also have to accept that his family didn’t need to believe in Christ to be saved. After all, Paul and Silas asserted that the Philippian jailer’s belief would secure his salvation along with his whole family’s salvation as well.
Perhaps it is better for us to understand that both belief and baptism a part of our acceptance of God’s grace and salvation; that belief is the only the beginning of our salvation. So when does the actual moment of salvation of occur? Is it when a person first believes in God or when they are buried in baptism? I believe that to be a foolish argument which produces little helpful resolution. It misses the point that both are necessary and simply ends up polarizing people’s opinions on meaningless dispute.
Of course, some might speculate that I condemn those who do not believe baptism’s essentiality. That would be incorrect. I am thankful that is not my decision, but God’s alone as the eternal Judge. As James wrote, “There only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy … and his name is not Dave Smith!” –James 4:12 (NIV). Okay, the part in italics is not actually in there, but you get the point. If you have a complaint, try to remember I am in sales, not management.
Will God accept those who believe in him but refuse to acknowledge baptism’s place in the forgiveness of sins and ultimately, salvation? Will he recognize sprinkling as a proper form of baptism? To both of these questions and to so many others, I would answer, “I hope so,” because I have had good friends throughout the years that have believed differently than I do. I do not wish to seem them condemned. But the only role I can play in this spiritual drama is to testify to the truth of his Word. No matter how good or sincere I may think someone to be, it is not my judgment that will matter, but God’s.
I am quite certain that in spite of his great love for me, God is unconcerned with whether or not I find his teachings too narrow or restrictive. He simply wishes to hear me give testimony of the truth which he has revealed in his Word and not in the opinions and feelings of men!
