​13. Statements of faith

To finish this, I thought it would be useful to actually analyze the statements of faith of both the North American Baptist Conference (NABC) and those of an affiliated church, Immanuel Baptist Church (IBC) in St. Catharines.

​

13.1 The North American Baptist Conference

We will start with the statements of faith surrounding salvation and baptism with the NABC.​​

​

The first statement on salvation:

We believe salvation is redemption by Christ of the whole person from sin and death (2 Timothy 1:9–10; 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

This sentence states that salvation is a complete redemption—not just of the soul, but of the “whole person.” The phrase “redemption by Christ” correctly identifies Christ as the source of salvation, aligning with 2 Timothy 1:9-10, which speaks of Christ bringing life and immortality through the gospel. However, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is a questionable citation here, as it speaks about God sanctifying believers completely rather than defining salvation itself.

​

It is offered as a free gift by God to all and must be received personally through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:4; Ephesians 2:8–9; Acts 20:21).

The phrase “free gift” aligns with Ephesians 2:8-9, which emphasizes that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. However, the phrase “must be received personally through repentance and faith” raises a key question:

1. Does this statement exclude baptism as part of receiving salvation?

2. If baptism is only an outward symbol rather than a necessary step, how does this align with Acts 2:38, which explicitly connects repentance, baptism, and the forgiveness of sins?

Additionally, Acts 20:21 (which speaks of Paul testifying “to Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in Jesus”) is used without context to support sola fide. This passage does not exclude baptism—it simply emphasizes the necessity of repentance and faith, leaving open the question of whether baptism is also required.

​

An individual is united to Christ by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 1:27).

This correctly acknowledges the Holy Spirit’s role in uniting a believer to Christ. However, it fails to mention how and when this happens.

​

Galatians 2:20 speaks about the believer’s new life in Christ, but it does not explain how one enters that life. Colossians 1:27 refers to the mystery of Christ dwelling in believers, but it also does not address how one is united to Christ initially. 

What is missing here? Baptism, for Paul explicitly teaches in Romans 6:3-5 and Galatians 3:27 that baptism is when one is united with Christ. The omission of baptism creates an incomplete picture of the biblical process of salvation.

​

As a child of God, the believer is acquitted of all guilt and brought into a new relationship of peace (Romans 5:1).

This correctly states that justification brings peace with God, citing Romans 5:1 ( “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”). However, the statement assumes justification happens at the moment of faith alone, without reference to the biblical link between baptism and justification (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21).

​

Christians grow as the Holy Spirit enables them to understand and obey the Word of God (2 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:12).

This statement correctly identifies the Holy Spirit’s role in spiritual growth (sanctification). The verses cited support the idea of maturing in Christ, though they do not define salvation itself.

​

The second statement on the church and baptism:

We believe the Church is the body of which Christ is the head and all who believe in Him are members (Ephesians 1:22–23; Romans 12:4–5).

This accurately describes the Church as Christ’s body, citing Ephesians 1:22-23 and Romans 12:4-5, which both affirm that believers are members of Christ’s body. However, how does one become part of this body? Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 12:13:  “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body...” Thus, baptism is the point at which one enters the Church—a fact missing from this statement.

​

Christians are commanded to be baptized upon profession of faith and to unite with a local church for mutual encouragement and growth in discipleship through worship, nurture, service, and the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world (Acts 2:41–42, 47; Luke 24:45–48).

The strongest issue in this statement is the claim that baptism is merely a command following faith. This contradicts Acts 2:38, where Peter explicitly states:  “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...” If baptism only follows salvation, why does Scripture link it directly to the forgiveness of sins? Acts 2:41-42 does describe new believers being baptized, but the passage itself does not present baptism as optional—it is the response to the gospel message. By reframing baptism as a command rather than a necessary step, this statement downplays its biblical significance in salvation.

​

The ordinances of the church are baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

​

This is a correct description of two key practices of the church. However, by calling them “ordinances” rather than “sacraments,” it reflects the Baptist theological position that these are symbolic acts, not means of grace.

​

Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18–20).

​

This correctly describes the mode of baptism (immersion) and the Trinitarian formula from Matthew 28:18-20. However, it does not address the purpose of baptism. Baptism is consistently tied in the Christian scriptures to forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), washing away sins (Acts 22:16), new life (Romans 6:3-5), and salvation (1 Peter 3:21)—yet this statement limits baptism to a mere symbolic identification with Christ.

“It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of the Savior Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3–5).”

This is the most significant misrepresentation in the statement. Romans 6:3-5 does not say that baptism is merely a symbol. It states that we are buried with Christ in baptism into death and raised to new life. If baptism is just a symbol, why does Paul say it is the moment when we are “united with Christ in His death”? By reducing baptism to only a symbol, this statement weakens Paul’s clear teaching that baptism is the means by which we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection.

This statement of faith reflects Baptist theology, which emphasizes salvation by grace through faith while minimizing baptism’s role. The most problematic areas are:

1. Baptism is treated as a command rather than the necessary step for forgiveness (Acts 2:38, 22:16).

2. Baptism is labeled as merely a symbol, contradicting Paul’s language of it as the moment of burial and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-5).

3. It assumes that justification occurs before baptism, yet scripture ties baptism directly to entry into Christ (Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21).

While much of the statement is biblically grounded, its treatment of baptism fails to align fully with the emphasis in Christian scriptures on baptism as part of the salvation process.

​

The NABC statement carefully selects words that downplay the necessity of baptism in the salvation process while still affirming it as an important practice. Words like “symbolizing”, “act of obedience”, and “upon profession of faith” are carefully chosen to frame baptism as secondary—a response after salvation has occurred, rather than as the biblical moment where sins are forgiven and union with Christ is established.

​

The phrasing of salvation as “received personally through repentance and faith” is telling. Baptism is absent from that formulation, though Acts 2:38 explicitly ties baptism to repentance and the forgiveness of sins. By choosing not to mention baptism here, the statement redefines the moment of salvation—removing baptism from the process and making it merely symbolic.

We will go through a detailed breakdown of the NABC's reframing of baptism:

1. “Christians are commanded to be baptized upon profession of faith...”
   By framing baptism as a “command” post-salvation changes its biblical purpose. In Acts 2:38, Peter says: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” This is not just a command to the saved but a requirement tied to forgiveness. By phrasing it “upon profession of faith”, the statement subtly asserts that salvation is already completed by faith, and baptism follows as a public act—contradicting scripture where baptism and forgiveness are linked.

2. “Baptism is... an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection...”
   The word “symbolizing” is significant—it turns baptism into a mere outward sign, not a means by which the believer participates in Christ’s death and resurrection. Romans 6:3-5 is cited, but it does not describe baptism as a symbol. Instead, Paul explicitly says: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” and “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death...” There is no language of mere symbolism. Baptism is the moment of burial and resurrection, not just a representation of it. The shift to “symbol” language reflects a theological choice to divorce baptism from salvation, replacing its biblical function with an interpretive framework alien to the text.

3. “An individual is united to Christ by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit...”
   While true, this statement leaves unaddressed how and when this regeneration happens. Scripture explicitly connects baptism to this moment of union: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27) and “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5) By avoiding any mention of baptism here, the statement severs regeneration from the scriptural act that visibly and tangibly accomplishes it.

​

Several crucial passages that make baptism part of salvation are either misapplied or entirely ignored:

1. Acts 2:38 directly ties baptism to forgiveness of sins. “Repent and be baptized... for the forgiveness of your sins.” The NABC cites Acts 2:41-42 (describing new believers being baptized) but ignores 2:38, disconnecting baptism from forgiveness.

2. Acts 22:16 says “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Paul is not told “You’re already saved—get baptized later” but “Wash away your sins” in baptism.

3. 1 Peter 3:21 says “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...” Peter anticipates the accusation of “mere symbolism” and rejects it, emphasizing that baptism saves not by washing dirt, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.

4. Romans 6:3-5 is misused to claim symbolism, when Paul explicitly teaches baptism unites us to Christ’s death and resurrection.

The cumulative effect of the language used by the NABC is to change the biblical purpose of baptism:

Scripture presents baptism as essential, salvific, and the moment of new birth.

The NABC reframes it as post-salvation obedience, thereby making it optional for salvation and merely a symbol. By selecting verses that focus on grace and faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1) but avoiding verses where baptism is the context for forgiveness and union with Christ, the statement creates a theological gap. It essentially rewrites baptism’s role to fit a faith-alone, symbol-only model, which is inconsistent with the direct teachings of Christian scriptures.

The NABC’s wording reflects a deliberate theological choice—to maintain sola fide while minimizing the salvific role of baptism. However, this does not align with scripture, where baptism is:

1. Commanded in connection with forgiveness (Acts 2:38).

2. The moment of washing away sins (Acts 22:16).

3. The act of burial and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6).

4. The means by which we put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

5. Explicitly described as saving us (1 Peter 3:21).

By softening baptism into symbolism and obedience post-faith, the statement misrepresents these scriptures and overrides the purpose of baptism as given by Christ and the apostles. The result is a theology where faith exists independently of the very act God appointed to unite us to Christ, which is foreign to the witness of Christian scriptures.

​​

13.2 Immanuel Baptist Church

The Immanuel Baptist Church is a member of this conference, and here are their abbreviated statements of faith, included here for criticism:

1. GOD
   There is one God, the creator of heaven and earth, who exists eternally in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. JESUS
   That Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed divine miracles, and died for our sins on the cross. He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and now intercedes for His followers as He sits at the right hand of God. He will return again; literally and visibly, to judge the world.

3. HOLY SPIRIT
   The Holy Spirit regenerates all those who come to Christ in faith. Through His indwelling presence, the Spirit equips, empowers and sanctifies every genuine believer.

4. SALVATION
   Although made in the image of God; human beings are born with a sinful nature, a condition which causes us to rebel against the ways of God. Our sin separates us from God and the only way we can be reconciled to Him is through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross. Salvation is by grace through faith, apart from human effort and good works.

5. BIBLE
   Is the divine inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testaments as originally given by God are infallible, entirely trustworthy and have supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct.

6. CHURCH
   The Church is not a building; it is a people. The Church is comprised of every person who has repented of their sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body.

7. ETERNITY
   One day every person who has ever lived will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Those who have rejected Christ will perish in their sins and experience eternal separation from God

​​

Faith, salvation and regeneration

On the topics of faith, salvation, and regeneration, the IBC position is that salvation is “by grace through faith, apart from human effort and good works.” Regeneration is by the Holy Spirit, triggered by faith: “The Holy Spirit regenerates all those who come to Christ in faith.” The Church is defined as “every person who has repented of their sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ.”

​

The NABC position is that salvation is “redemption by Christ of the whole person from sin and death,” offered “as a free gift... received personally through repentance and faith.” Regeneration happens “by the Holy Spirit,” but the NABC adds: "At regeneration and conversion, the believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).”

​

Both statements share a Reformed emphasis on salvation by grace through faith. However, the NABC’s inclusion of the Spirit’s role in conversion is more detailed, adding biblical references to Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts. IBC’s framing is slightly shallower: it reduces the work of the Spirit to “regenerating those who come to Christ in faith”—implicitly placing faith first as the human act that triggers regeneration. Scripturally, this ordering is debatable: texts like John 3:5-8 (born of water and Spirit) and Titus 3:5 emphasize God’s initiative in regeneration, often connected to baptism, which IBC omits entirely.

​

Baptism: presence, absence, and framing
The IBC statement on baptism is completely absence. There is no mention of baptism anywhere in the IBC statement.

The NABC statement on baptism is explicit: “Christians are commanded to be baptized upon profession of faith.” This describes baptism as “an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Romans 6:3–5) but downplays any salvific function, presenting baptism instead as a symbolic act after salvation.

IBC’s silence on baptism is striking—especially for a Baptist church where baptism is supposedly central both theologically and practically. This absence glosses over the historic Baptist emphasis on believer’s baptism and ignores the biblical connection between baptism and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). NABC weakens baptism's role, but IBC erases it entirely. By avoiding the topic, IBC fails to address:

1. Entry into the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27).

2. The biblical linkage between baptism and salvation (1 Peter 3:21).

3. The Great Commission command (Matthew 28:19).

The result is an impoverished soteriology in IBC’s statement—there is no sacramental or covenantal initiation into Christ’s body, no public or physical act of obedience, nor any recognition of the biblical function of baptism as a moment of union with Christ.

​

Treatment of key doctrines in IBC’s wording
The statements of faith include that “Salvation is by grace through faith, apart from human effort and good works.” While true, this simplified phrasing ignores scriptural descriptions of faith as active, living, and completed by obedience (James 2:24). There is no mention of repentance being ongoing—IBC treats repentance as a one-time event tied to conversion, missing the biblical notion of continual repentance and faithfulness (Luke 9:23). Finally, the IBC’s definition of the church is that “The Church is comprised of every person who has repented and put their faith in Christ,” which, again, has no mention of baptism as the scriptural entrance into the body (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:5).

​

The NABC’s broader statement, while still leaning toward sola fide and symbolic baptism, at least acknowledges baptism, church discipline, and ordinances, offering more theological depth.

​

There are also scriptural disconnects and missed context, for both statements favor Ephesians 2:8-9 to support salvation by faith alone but ignore baptism’s inclusion in salvation texts like:

1. Acts 2:38 that says “Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of your sins.”

2. Acts 22:16 that says “Be baptized and wash away your sins.”

3. Romans 6:3-5 that is read as “symbolic” in NABC but the context is clearly participatory—baptism joins believers to Christ's death and resurrection.

IBC further decontextualizes the salvation process by removing baptism altogether, resulting in a hyper-simplified faith-alone narrative that conflicts with patterns in the Christian scriptures.

​

Points of tension or contradiction

1. Baptism
   The IBC has it omitted entirely. No mention of baptism in salvation, church life, or discipleship. For the NABC, it is required, but symbolic. Described as an act of obedience after profession of faith, symbolizing union with Christ. IBC’s complete silence is striking for a Baptist church and undermines historic Baptist distinctives. NABC weakens baptism’s biblical role, reframing it as symbolic rather than participatory in salvation. Both positions fail to present baptism as essential for forgiveness and union with Christ (Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3–5).

2. Faith and salvation
   The IBC states that faith is the sole condition for salvation—“by grace through faith, apart from human effort.” The NABC has that faith is primary but adds Spirit baptism at conversion as a theological element. IBC risks promoting a reductionist “bare faith” concept that disconnects salvation from covenantal acts like baptism. NABC adds nuance with Spirit baptism but still lacks clarity on when saving union with Christ is fully realized. Both tend toward sola fide readings that underplay biblical calls to obedient response.

3. Church entry
   IBC has that entry is by repentance and faith—no mention of baptism or formal covenant. NABC has that entry is by faith followed by symbolic baptism; church membership is post-conversion. Both fail to connect church membership explicitly to baptism, despite Scripture tying entry into the Body of Christ to baptism (1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27). IBC leaves church entry purely abstract, while NABC ritualizes but minimizes the sacramental meaning of baptism.

4. Regeneration
   IBC has that it is the result of faith. The Holy Spirit regenerates those after they come to Christ in faith. NABC has it combined with Spirit baptism at regeneration and conversion (1 Cor 12:13). IBC’s order risks semi-Pelagianism by placing human faith as the trigger for regeneration. NABC better preserves God’s initiative, but both avoid connecting baptism to the moment of new birth, ignoring passages like John 3:5 and Titus 3:5, which link the Spirit’s work to water baptism.

​

To conclude, the Immanuel Baptist Church’s statement of faith is notably shallow, particularly on salvation and baptism. By erasing baptism entirely, IBC:

1. Undermines biblical teachings connecting baptism to forgiveness, union with Christ, and church membership.

2. Detaches itself from historic Baptist distinctives like believer’s baptism by immersion.

3. Glosses over biblical complexities, creating a reductionist view of salvation as faith alone without obedience or sacramental acts.

The NABC statement, while more robust, still misframes baptism as symbolic, contradicting biblical language about its salvific role. However, it at least acknowledges baptism’s existence, role in discipleship, and as part of the church’s practice.

The IBC’s omissions result in a theologically thin confession, especially on matters of salvation and baptism. By erasing baptism entirely, IBC:

1. Undermines clear biblical teachings that connect baptism directly to forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, and entrance into the Church (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13).

2. Detaches itself from historic Baptist distinctives, particularly the central belief in believer’s baptism by immersion.

3. Glosses over biblical complexities, reducing salvation to a personal faith decision without addressing the role of obedience, sacraments, or ongoing discipleship as presented in Scripture.

It is somewhat ironic—and theologically dissonant—that a church identifying itself as “Baptist” makes no mention of baptism in its statement of faith. Given that Baptists historically define themselves by their view of baptism (believer’s baptism by immersion as an expression of faith and obedience), this omission reflects either an oversight or a broader theological drift. It risks reducing the rich biblical doctrine of baptism to a mere church tradition rather than the biblically mandated response to the gospel. This shallowness raises concerns about how baptism is understood, taught, and practiced within the congregation.

​

By contrast, while the NABC statement is still flawed in its symbolic framing of baptism, it at least acknowledges baptism’s place in Christian life and church practice. IBC’s silence leaves a critical gap in its theological foundation—one that is especially striking for a church within the Baptist tradition.

​

Finally, there are grammatical and theological errors in the IBC's statements of faith.

First, parallel structure is the grammatical practice of ensuring elements in a list or series follow the same pattern or form for clarity and consistency. The IBC statements of faith break parallel structure by shifting between sentence fragments (e.g., “Is the divine inspiration of the Bible”), full sentences, and varied phrasing—creating inconsistency that weakens clarity and may confuse the reader about which statements are affirmations, beliefs, or descriptions. 

1. ​The first statement could be prefixed by “We believe that...”

2. The second is prefixed by “We believe...” as the statement begins with the word “that...”

3. The third and fourth could be prefixed with “We believe that...”

4. The fifth particularly fails, as the statement is a fragment, lacking a direct subject: “We believe that God...” is necessary to prefix the statement “Is the divine inspiration of the Bible.” Alternatively, “In the divine inspiration of the Bible.” could be prefixed by “We believe...”

5. The last two can be prefixed again with “We believe that...”

This lack of parallel structure makes it exceptionally difficult to read these statements of faith. There are also serious grammatical errors, with the author not understanding when to use commas, when to use semicolons, and when to use neither:

1. A dependent clause should be followed by a comma and not a semicolon, and yet we have “Although made in the image of God; human beings are born with a sinful nature...”

2. A semicolon should not be used before an adverbial phrase that is not an independent clause, and yet we have “He will return again; literally and visibly, to judge the world.” This should use a common, instead.

​

Other criticisms include:

1. ​The phrase “His indwelling presence” is slightly redundant since “indwelling” already implies presence. The term “genuine believer” introduces ambiguity, as it relies on subjective judgment of sincerity rather than objective faith. Additionally, “equips” and “empowers” overlap in meaning and could be refined for clarity and conciseness.

2. One weakness in the sentence “Although made in the image of God; human beings are born with a sinful nature, a condition which causes us to rebel against the ways of God.” is the ambiguity caused by the opening phrase “Although made in the image of God”. Grammatically, this is a dangling modifier because it lacks a clear subject, leaving the reader momentarily unsure who is “made in the image of God.” While it’s meant to refer to human beings, the phrasing could momentarily suggest it refers to God, creating confusion. Rewriting the sentence to explicitly name humans as the subject—such as “Although humans were made in the image of God”—would immediately clarify the intended meaning. Additionally, the sentence’s flow is weakened by wordy and passive phrasing in “a condition which causes us to rebel against the ways of God.” The use of “which causes” is unnecessarily indirect and creates a heavier, less direct structure. Stronger wording like “a sinful nature that leads us to rebel against God” would simplify the sentence, making it more active and impactful while improving clarity and readability.

3. The passage “Our sin separates us from God and the only way we can be reconciled to Him is through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross. Salvation is by grace through faith, apart from human effort and good works.” presents both theological and structural issues that weaken its clarity and precision. The phrase “Our sin separates us from God and the only way we can be reconciled to Him is through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross” risks implying that faith and Christ’s atonement are two separate mechanisms for reconciliation, rather than clarifying that faith connects us to the benefits of Christ’s atoning death. A clearer phrasing would directly link faith as the means by which we access Christ’s sacrifice, avoiding the unintended suggestion that faith itself saves independently of the cross. Additionally, the follow-up “Salvation is by grace through faith, apart from human effort and good works” is vulnerable to theological overreach. While intending to emphasize salvation by grace, the phrase “apart from human effort and good works” is broad and could be misunderstood to exclude any response of obedience—such as repentance, baptism, or continued discipleship—from the salvation process. Without clarification, it risks drifting toward antinomianism, where any commanded action is treated as irrelevant or even opposed to salvation, despite New Testament calls to faithful obedience.

4. The statement “The Church is not a building; it is a people” contains both grammatical and theological issues. While the semicolon is technically correct in connecting two independent clauses, the phrase “a people” is awkward and potentially misleading. In modern English, “a people” often refers to an ethnic or national group, which could unintentionally suggest that the Church is a singular ethnic body rather than a diverse spiritual community. This risks confusing readers and weakening the intended meaning. Theologically, the wording fails to capture the biblical concept of the Church as the collective body of believers from all nations, united in Christ. Phrasing such as “the community of believers”, “the body of Christ”, or “the people of God” would be clearer, more accurate, and better aligned with scriptural language (e.g., Ephesians 1:22-23). These alternatives avoid ambiguity and emphasize that the Church is defined by its relationship to Christ, not by a physical structure or ethnic identity.

5. The statement “The Old and New Testaments as originally given by God are infallible, entirely trustworthy and have supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct.” has a number of issues:

   1. The phrase “as originally given by God” in the statement creates both grammatical and theological issues that weaken its clarity. Grammatically, its placement is ambiguous—readers may be unsure whether it modifies the Old and New Testaments or the qualities of infallibility, trustworthiness, and authority. This confusion can obscure the intended meaning and make the sentence harder to follow.

   2. Theologically, the phrase raises concerns by implying that only the original manuscripts (which no longer exist) were infallible and authoritative, leaving modern translations or copies outside that guarantee. This risks undermining confidence in the Bible as it is read and used today, creating uncertainty about which versions are fully trustworthy. Without clarification, the statement could unintentionally suggest that Scripture’s authority is inaccessible to contemporary believers, rather than affirming that God’s word remains reliable and authoritative in preserved form.

6. The statement “One day every person who has ever lived will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Those who have rejected Christ will perish in their sins and experience eternal separation from God” on eternity is structurally simple, but this simplicity leads to theological imbalance and potential misunderstanding. It focuses solely on judgment and the fate of those who reject Christ, stating they will “perish in their sins and experience eternal separation from God.” However, it says nothing about the resurrection or the promised reward for believers, leaving out the central Christian hope of eternal life with God. This narrow focus risks presenting Christianity as primarily about avoiding punishment rather than embracing the fullness of salvation. Additionally, the phrase “perish in their sins” is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. Without clarification, it could imply annihilation, spiritual death, or eternal conscious separation—each carrying different theological implications. The absence of any mention of bodily resurrection further weakens the statement, making the final judgment sound disembodied and incomplete. A more balanced description would affirm both the resurrection and eternal life for believers alongside the judgment of those who reject Christ, fully reflecting biblical teaching.

​​

13.3 The Baptist understanding of baptism as being symbolic and as a command from Jesus

​​Here is a reasonable summary of how Baptists understand the act of baptism:

Baptism is a sacred ordinance—meaning a practice that Jesus specifically commanded his followers to observe. Like the Lord’s Supper, it is an outward, symbolic act that publicly proclaims a believer’s faith in Jesus Christ and identification with his death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism by immersion represents the believer’s commitment to leave behind the old life of sin and walk in newness of life. While baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is a vital step of obedience and an expression of the believer’s desire to follow Jesus and be part of his church. Just as citizens observe certain ceremonies like pledging allegiance to signify their membership in a nation, believers are baptized to signify their membership in Jesus’s community.

​​

Baptists do not believe that baptism has any role in achieving salvation. Salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus alone; baptism is a symbolic act of obedience that follows salvation, serving as a public declaration of one’s faith but not as a requirement for forgiveness or eternal life.

​

As described above, the act of communion is also an ordinance, or command of Jesus:

The Lord’s Supper is a sacred ordinance—meaning a practice that Jesus commanded his followers to observe regularly. Like baptism, it is a symbolic act that reminds believers of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. In the Lord’s Supper, believers eat bread and drink from the cup to represent Jesus’s broken body and shed blood, proclaiming his death until he returns (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). While it does not impart grace or forgiveness in itself, the Lord’s Supper serves as a meaningful act of obedience, reflection, and unity with fellow believers. Just as families might share a meal to remember a loved one or a significant event, Christians share this meal to remember Jesus’s sacrifice and reaffirm their commitment to him and to one another as his church.

​​

Baptists do not believe that the Lord’s Supper imparts salvation or grace. It is a symbolic act of remembrance, commanded by Jesus, through which believers reflect on his sacrifice, proclaim his death, and express their unity as his church—but it is not a means of receiving forgiveness or eternal life.​​

​

We will now look at the support used by Baptists for the first. We will begin by looking at three verses that Baptists use to support the idea that baptism is a command of Jesus and why these verses do not suggest that baptism is required for salvation:

1. Matthew 28:19-20 (The Great Commission) “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
   Baptists see this as the clearest command from Jesus, directly instructing His followers that baptism is part of making disciples and obedience to His teaching. Baptists interpret this as a command to baptize those who have already become disciples through faith. The sequence—“make disciples” first, then “baptizing them”—indicates that salvation precedes baptism. Baptism is presented here as part of discipleship and obedience, not as a condition for salvation. Therefore, baptism is commanded for those who are already saved, not as the means of salvation itself.

2. Mark 16:15-16 “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.’”
   While Baptists focus on belief as the condition of salvation (not baptism), this verse affirms that baptism is commanded as a normal and expected response to the gospel. Baptists focus on the fact that condemnation is linked only to unbelief, not the absence of baptism: “but the one who does not believe will be condemned.” This wording shows that belief is the essential condition for salvation, not baptism. Baptism is mentioned as a natural and expected response to belief, but not performing baptism is not what results in condemnation. This affirms baptism as obedience following faith, rather than a requirement for salvation.

3. Acts 2:38 “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
   Baptists read this as the apostolic pattern and command—repentance and baptism are presented together as the response to the gospel, with baptism being an expected act of obedience following saving faith. Baptists understand this as Peter’s call for both repentance and baptism, but they emphasize that repentance and faith are the basis for forgiveness in Christian theology. The phrase “so that your sins may be forgiven” is often viewed as grammatically tied to repentance, not baptism, making baptism a public expression of repentance rather than the cause of forgiveness. Furthermore, the broader teaching of Scripture (e.g., Ephesians 2:8–9) makes clear that salvation is by grace through faith, not by any ritual action like baptism.

​​

In these, Baptists claim that baptism is commanded by Jesus and practiced by the early church; however, faith alone is the requirement for salvation; baptism is an act of obedience and public testimony following faith. None of these passages, properly interpreted, make baptism a precondition for receiving salvation or forgiveness. This view is reinforced by the absence of baptism as a condition in passages like John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9.

​

We will continue by looking at three verses that Baptists use to support the idea that baptism is purely symbolic of Jesus and why these verses do not suggest that baptism is required for salvation:

1. Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
   While this passage speaks of baptism into Jesus’s death, Baptists argue that Paul uses symbolic language here. The death, burial, and resurrection imagery is viewed as representative—baptism dramatizes what faith has already accomplished internally. It visually symbolizes dying to sin and rising to new life rather than causing that change.

2. 1 Peter 3:21 “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
   This is the closest verse to stating that baptism is symbolic. Peter distinguishes the physical act (“not as a removal of dirt”) from the spiritual reality (an “appeal to God for a good conscience”). Baptists argue that Peter clarifies: it is not the water or act itself that saves, but what it represents—a heart turning to God, made possible through Jesus’s resurrection.

3. Colossians 2:12 “When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”
   Baptists highlight that faith, not baptism, is the active mechanism of spiritual transformation here. Baptism is described alongside faith but functions as the symbol of being “buried” and “raised”—a visual representation of what faith accomplishes by the power of God. This verse frames baptism as connected to salvation events but not the cause.

While no verse bluntly says “baptism is only symbolic”, Romans 6:3–4, 1 Peter 3:21, and Colossians 2:12 contain language that Baptists use to argue symbolism with imagery of burial and resurrection, a distinction between external washing and internal conscience, and an emphasis on faith, not the act, as the transformative power. These verses allow Baptists to defend baptism as an important symbolic ordinance that visually represents salvation already received by faith.

​

Next, we will look at three verses that Baptists use to infer that baptism does not play a role in salvation:

1. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
   This passage clearly grounds salvation in grace through faith alone and explicitly denies that salvation is a result of any work or action—baptism included. Since baptism is a physical act, this verse is often cited to argue that salvation cannot depend on baptism, but rather, baptism follows as a symbolic response to the gift of salvation already received.

2. Romans 10:9-10 “Because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart, leading to righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, leading to salvation.”
   Paul outlines the means of salvation—confession and belief—not baptism. Baptists argue that if baptism were required for salvation, Paul would have included it here. Instead, he focuses solely on internal belief and verbal confession as the conditions for salvation, supporting the view that baptism is symbolic, not salvific.

3. Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.’ He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’”
   The thief on the cross is a powerful example Baptists use to show that salvation is based on faith alone, without baptism. The thief professes faith in Jesus but is never baptized, yet Jesus assures him of salvation. This moment powerfully supports the view that baptism is a symbolic act of obedience but not required for salvation.

​

These passages reinforce the Baptist belief that salvation is a gift received by faith and that baptism, while commanded and important, is not necessary for salvation but symbolic—an outward sign of inward grace already received.

​

We will now describe five verses that clearly link baptism with salvation, and then proceed to step through the logical fallacies necessary to claim that the above nine verses do not link baptism to salvation. These are commonly cited by those arguing baptism is essential for salvation:

1. Mark 1:4 “John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
   Baptism here is explicitly tied to repentance and forgiveness of sins.

2. Mark 16:16 “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”
   Implies that both belief and baptism lead to salvation.

3. Acts 2:38 “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
   Baptism appears grammatically tied to forgiveness of sins and receiving the Spirit.

4. Acts 22:16 “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”
   Baptism is directly connected to washing away sins.

5. 1 Peter 3:21 “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
   The words “baptism... now saves you” seem explicit.

Below is the critique of the nine Baptist-cited verses describing the fallacies involved in arguing baptism is symbolic or not required:

1. Verses cited to show baptism is a command, so citing:

   1. ​Matthew 28:19–20 uses the fallacy of cherry-picking. The argument isolates the “make disciples” clause to prioritize belief while minimizing the “baptizing them” command. Yet both are parallel imperatives in the Greek. Ignoring that parallel structure downplays baptism’s role as a commanded part of disciple-making. Additionally, John 3:5 (“no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”) adds weight to baptism's essential connection. The Great Commission equally commands “make disciples” and “baptizing them"—the grammar links these actions. The command to baptize is not optional or secondary but integral to disciple-making. If making a disciple includes teaching and baptism, then skipping baptism leaves the command incomplete. Additionally, John 3:5 states: “No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit”, reinforcing that water baptism is part of new birth, not merely a symbol.

   2. Mark 16:15–16 uses the fallacy of misinterpretation. Baptists emphasize only the second half (condemnation from unbelief) to argue belief alone matters. But the first half clearly pairs belief and baptism with salvation. It is illogical to separate the two conditions when both are grammatically linked. Further, the use of “baptized will be saved” mirrors Acts 2:38. This is a false disjunction—the fact that unbelief leads to condemnation does not mean baptism is optional. The verse says, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.” The natural reading is that both belief and baptism are part of salvation. Other passages (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21) confirm baptism’s necessary role. Refusing baptism undermines belief because it rejects Jesus’s clear command.

   3. Acts 2:38 uses the fallacies of taking the text out of context and misinterpretation. Baptists argue forgiveness is tied solely to repentance, not baptism. But contextually, Peter presents baptism as integral: “Repent AND be baptized... for the forgiveness of sins.” Ignoring this coordination alters the meaning. Furthermore, Acts 22:16 directly confirms that baptism is where sins are washed away. This ignores the structure of the sentence. “Repent and be baptized... for the forgiveness of sins” links both repentance and baptism to forgiveness. In Greek, the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” modifies both verbs. Additionally, Acts 22:16 confirms baptism’s role in cleansing sin: “be baptized... and have your sins washed away.” The Christian scripture pattern is clear: baptism is not an optional symbol but part of salvation’s process.

2. Verses cited to show baptism is symbolic and not salvific, so citing:

   1. Romans 6:3-4 uses the fallacy of misinterpretation. Baptists claim this is symbolic, but Paul does not call it a symbol. He states believers were “baptized into Christ’s death”, a statement of spiritual union. Contextually, the death, burial, and resurrection are participatory, not performative. Calling this “mere symbolism” injects meaning not present in the text. If baptism were just a symbol, Paul could have said so—but instead, he presents baptism as the moment of union with Christ’s death and resurrection. Further, the words “so that we might walk in newness of life” suggest baptism is the transitional point into new life, not a post-salvation symbol.

   2. 1 Peter 3:21 uses the fallacies of cherry-picking and misinterpretation. Baptists isolate “not as a removal of dirt” to deny baptism’s salvific power but ignore the explicit phrase “baptism... now saves you”. The “appeal to God for a good conscience” happens in the act of baptism. The broader context ties baptism to Noah's ark—actual salvation from death, not mere representation. This is also selective reading. The verse explicitly says “baptism... now saves you.” Peter clarifies it’s not about physical washing, but that baptism appeals to God for a clean conscience through Jesus’s resurrection. Baptism is where that appeal is made—its saving power comes from the resurrection, not from the water itself. The parallel to Noah’s Ark reinforces this: the Ark actually saved them, it was not symbolic.

   3. Colossians 2:12 uses the fallacies of misinterpretation and ignored context. Baptists focus on “through faith” to detach baptism’s effect. However, baptism and faith are inseparably linked here: “buried with him in baptism, also raised with him through faith.” Separating baptism’s role violates Paul’s grammar and ignores that the burial and resurrection are happening in baptism. Baptism and faith work together—it’s not either/or. Baptism is the moment where burial and resurrection with Jesus happen, activated through faith. To detach baptism from salvation ignores Paul’s grammar and theological flow. Galatians 3:27 further confirms: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

3. ​Verses cited to emphasize salvation by faith alone, so citing:

   1. Ephesians 2:8-9 uses the fallacies of cherry-picking and of making a category error. True, salvation is not earned by works. However, here, “works” refers specifically to observances of the Mosaic law—rituals, sacrifices, circumcision, and practices intended to fulfill the covenant of the Torah. Paul contrasts salvation by grace with those works done to earn righteousness under the Old Covenant. Baptism, however, is never categorized as one of these “works” in Scripture. Instead, it is a commanded, participatory act, where the one being baptized submits to God’s action. The individual does not perform the work—baptism is something done to them, and Scripture frames it as God working through the act (Colossians 2:12 – “by the power of God”). It is the moment of entering the New Covenant, not an attempt to earn merit through works of the Law. Furthermore, 1 Peter 3:21 explicitly places baptism within the salvation process, not outside of it as a human work. The apostles never separated baptism from grace.

   2. Romans 10:9-10 uses the fallacies of taking the text out of context and the argument from silence. Baptists argue that because baptism isn’t mentioned here, it’s unnecessary. Paul’s focus in Romans 10 is on the internal attitude of faith and the confession that flows from it, not an exhaustive theological treatise on salvation’s full process. He does not deny baptism’s role; he simply isn’t addressing it here because it’s not his topic in this section. More importantly, Paul is writing to the church in Rome, a community of already baptized believers. In the first century, no one was considered part of the church without baptism (see Romans 6:3–4, where Paul reminds them “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death”). Paul is urging them to maintain their salvation through enduring faith and faithful confession, not to rehearse initial conversion requirements. To argue that Paul’s omission of baptism here negates its necessity contradicts his own teaching elsewhere—especially Romans 6, which explicitly ties baptism to new life in Jesus. Omitting baptism here doesn’t negate its necessity elsewhere. By Baptist logic, repentance would also be unnecessary since it’s not mentioned here—which is clearly wrong.

   3. Luke 23:42-43 uses the exceptional case fallacy. Baptists use the thief as a general rule that baptism is unnecessary. Yet, the thief was under the Old Covenant—Jesus had not yet died and risen, nor instituted Christian baptism. Using this unique, transitional moment to override repeated Christian scripture baptism commands is logically flawed.​

​​

We will also now refer back to the statements of faith of the NABC, and look at the passages that are cited to emphasize faith in salvation:

1. 1 Timothy 2:4 “[God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This focuses salvation on intellectual assent and internal belief, suggesting that knowledge/faith is the sole means. The fallacy is that of a category error—assuming “knowledge of the truth” excludes necessary obedient acts like baptism. The passage says nothing about the process of salvation, yet it’s used to reduce salvation to mental assent.

2. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” As described above, this is a primary “faith alone” proof text, used to argue that salvation cannot involve baptism, assumed here to be a "work." Again, this includes the fallacies of a categorical error and equivocation—wrongly classifying baptism (a commanded response and divine act) as "works" like law-keeping. Cherry-picking also applies: the verse excludes works of the law, not every act of obedience.

3. Acts 20:21 “...testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus.” This focuses salvation on repentance and faith, with no mention of baptism. It uses the fallacy of an argument from silence—assuming that because baptism is not mentioned, it is unnecessary, ignoring that Acts elsewhere (2:38, 22:16) ties baptism to forgiveness.

4. Romans 5:1 “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is used to affirm faith alone as the means of justification. It uses the fallacies of selective reading and false dichotomy—it ignores that Paul elsewhere (Romans 6) explicitly links baptism to new life and union with Jesus. It assumes justification is disconnected from any commanded response like baptism.

​

Similarly, here are passages that are cited in the NABC's statements of faith to downplay the relevance of baptism in salvation:

1. Acts 2:41–42,47 “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.” This cites the mass baptism event but skips Acts 2:38, which directly connects baptism to forgiveness of sins. It uses the fallacy of cherry-picking—using the narrative of baptism as response while avoiding the preceding doctrinal statement that baptism is for forgiveness.

2. Luke 24:45–48 “...that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” This is chosen to emphasize preaching and belief as the path to forgiveness, bypassing baptism. It uses the fallacy of an argument from silence—the text does not mention baptism, but silence is wrongly interpreted as irrelevance. It ignores that Acts explicitly implements baptism as the response.

3. Romans 6:3–5 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?... so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Although the text explicitly connects baptism to union with Christ’s death and resurrection, the statement of faith reframes it as symbolic. As described above, this uses the fallacy of reinterpretation and minimizing explicit language—it turns a literal description of spiritual participation into mere symbolism.

4. Matthew 28:18–20“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them... and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” Framed as a command to obey, not as having salvific effect. Also as described above, this uses the fallacy of understatement and of a categorical error—it treats baptism as a ritual act of obedience, separated from salvation, despite its placement in the Great Commission alongside disciple-making. It ignores how “baptizing” is structurally part of making disciples.

​

The NABC's statements of faith are rife with logical fallacies in order to support their claims. Faith-centered verses are used with a default assumption that salvation is internal and mental, excluding embodied acts like baptism, including logical fallacies such as category errors (treating baptism as a "work" in Paul's sense of works of the law), the argument from silence (implying baptism is unnecessary because certain verses don’t mention it, even if it is clearly linked elsewhere), and cherry-picking (ignoring surrounding context (especially in Acts) that directly links baptism to forgiveness.) Verses associated with baptism are stripped of their salvific context or reframed as symbolic acts, minimized by selective citation (e.g., Acts 2:41 cited while Acts 2:38 omitted), and reinterpreted against the text’s clear participatory language (Romans 6 turned into “symbolism” rather than union with Christ).

​

This has been an interesting exercise, and you will note that many of the passages discussed here are described above, as well.  The Baptist position, while sincerely held, relies heavily on a chain of logical fallacies—cherry-picking, arguments from silence, category errors, exceptional case reasoning, and misinterpretation of context. Each of these allows passages that affirm baptism’s role in salvation to be minimized, reframed, or ignored. Yet it is important to understand how easily this happens. Most Baptists inherit a theological framework—salvation by faith alone—either from childhood or from the moment of conversion. This foundational belief becomes the lens through which every verse is read, often unconsciously. Over time, deeply ingrained conviction leads to reinterpreting scripture to fit that framework, rather than letting scripture shape the framework itself. This doesn’t make those who hold these views malicious or evil—only mistaken. It reflects the power of tradition and religious instruction: when people are told from their earliest spiritual moments that faith alone saves, it becomes natural to resolve any biblical tension in favor of that belief, even if doing so means relying on subtle fallacies or inconsistent reasoning.
 

It’s also worth noting that many groups, such as the Church of Christ and other Restorationist movements, eventually pushed back against sola fide because they recognized that the Christian scriptures consistently links baptism to salvation. Interestingly, the widespread belief in faith alone seems to have sprouted from a misunderstanding of Martin Luther’s emphasis on salvation apart from works of the law—a concept aimed specifically at opposing the sale of indulgences and abuses within the medieval church, not at dismissing the commands of Christ like baptism. Over time, however, sola fide evolved, especially in the American context, into a tool that minimized the role of clergy, sacraments, and the church itself, reducing salvation to an individual’s internal belief.

​

This shift also aligns closely with the distinctly American emphasis on individualism. The notion that faith alone—a personal, internal conviction—determines salvation fits naturally within a cultural framework that values personal autonomy, self-reliance, and freedom from institutional authority. As Christianity expanded in America, especially during the revival movements, sola fide resonated because it reduced dependence on clergy, sacraments, or the institutional church. It empowered individuals to claim salvation based on their private belief, aligning theological conviction with the broader American ideal that each person charts their own spiritual destiny without intermediaries.
 

The historical record is telling: for nearly 1,500 years, sola fide was not even a topic of theological discussion. The early church, the councils, and even Augustine did not separate faith from baptismal obedience. Only after the Reformation did this concept emerge, largely as a response to clerical corruption—not as a natural outgrowth of biblical teaching. What’s more, many later Christian movements—including the Church of Christ—began to reject the extremes of sola fide during what might be called a “restoration” era. They recognized that stripping baptism of its salvific significance contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture. In this sense, sola fide is not only historically late but arguably an overcorrection—one that some traditions have since sought to balance by returning baptism to its rightful place at the center of Christian conversion.

​