SUMMARY OF JACK COTTRELL’S “COLLECTED WRITINGS” SERIES:
VOLUME FIVE: ONE BAPTISM INTO CHRIST, by Jack Cottrell

INTRODUCTION

I have written much on baptism, including a book called Baptism: A Biblical Study, published by College Press in 1989 and later in a slightly revised edition. It is still in print. See also the first two chapters in former student David Fletcher’s book, Baptism and the Remission of Sins, first published by College Press in 1990 and now by Hester Publications. In this latter book I write chapter one, “The Biblical Consensus: Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology” (pp. 17-38); and also chapter two, “Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition” (39-81). In the latter I give a concise explanation of Huldreich Zwingli’s creation of his new and disastrous view of the meaning of baptism, the one we call today “faith-onlyism.” I call it Zwinglianism. (This essay has 234 footnotes, indicating where to find all my quotations from writings.)

This present Volume Five of my Collected Writings series is almost all material written since these two publications. This volume consists of 28 essays of various lengths, covering 219 pages. It is called One Baptism into Christ. Many of these essays are designed to show what I consider to be one of the most important and essential of Christian doctrines, i.e., the view that Christian water baptism has been declared by God (in the NT) to be the moment of time in which He bestows both aspects of salvation from sin, namely, the double cure of justification (= forgiveness) through the blood of Christ and regeneration (= born again) through the gift of the Holy Spirit. There are also many other essays on practical questions concerning the act of baptism as such.

We must never stop emphasizing the absolute duty of the church to believe, teach, and practice water baptism as a salvation event. If you are not doing this, repent and change NOW! Preachers and congregations that have abandoned this view are no longer Biblical and Restorationist. GET BIBLICAL, FRIENDS!

The 28 essays here are divided into three sections: (a) General Studies; (b) Baptism and Salvation; and (c) Miscellaneous Subjects. The first section has some of the more important material; I will give slightly longer summaries of four of these. The remaining essays will mostly just be listed with brief comments.

PART ONE: GENERAL STUDIES

A. “Baptism: First Principles” (pp. 7-30). Here I am presenting eleven basic Biblical facts or principles under which we can collect almost all Biblical teaching about baptism. I will just list them. See the book for some discussion of each.

1. A right understanding of baptism is important.
2. All doctrine, including baptism, is based on Scripture first, not experience.
3. The doctrine of baptism cannot be based on non-Biblical sources.
4. There are three main issues regarding baptism. (Action, subjects, design.)
5. Christian baptism began on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts chapter 2.
6. There is only one baptism for Christians.
7. Baptism is the time when the double cure of salvation is given.
8. Baptism is fundamentally a work of God, not a work of man.
9. Baptism in the NT is not the same as circumcision in the OT.
10. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), but not for the forgiveness of past sins only.
11. Baptism does not belong in a general category of practices along with the Lord’s Supper.

B. “The History of Baptism: From Paul to Zwingli” (pp. 31-43). This essay, in two sections, condenses the material in the two chapters from the Fletcher book mentioned in the introduction above.

1. Section one is “From Paul to Luther.” Here I show (giving a few examples) that the first 1500 years of Christian history included what I call “the Biblical consensus” about baptism—that it is a salvation event. First I give examples before Augustine, namely, Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), and Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386). Here is one: “We have learned from the apostles this reason” for baptism: “in order that we . . . may obtain in the water the remission of sins” (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” ¶61).

Then I touch on the “Roman Catholic” era (the Middle Ages), from Augustine to Martin Luther. A main example is Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), influential Catholic theologian. He declared: “No one can obtain salvation but through Christ…. But for this end is baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ…. Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men” (Summa Theologica, 68:1).

My main attention here is given to Martin Luther, the only major Protestant Reformer to maintain the Biblical consensus. He regarded baptism as a mighty work of God in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pour out the full blessings of salvation upon penitent believers. Here are some quotes from Luther (see the book for sources): In answer to the question, “What gifts or benefits does baptism bestow?”, he says first of all, “It effects forgiveness of sins.” “Through baptism [the sinner] is bathed in the blood of Christ and is cleansed from sins.” “Both the forgiveness and the driving out of sins are the work of baptism.” [The double cure!] “Through baptism man is saved.” In answer to the question of what benefits, gifts, and effects baptism brings, he says, “To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit and purpose of Baptism is to save.”

2. Section two in this essay is devoted entirely to a summary of Zwingli’s new doctrine of baptism. He first concluded (1523) that there is no connection between baptism and salvation. He said, “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism…. The two are not to be connected and used together.” Such a connection “contradicts salvation by grace alone through the blood of Christ,” and also violates God’s sovereign freedom to act when and where He chooses. Zwingli’s main reason (usually ignored) was his philosophical dualism—the alleged antithesis between matter and spirit, between body and soul. He said, “Material water cannot contribute in any way to the cleansing of the soul.”

Rejecting a connection between baptism and salvation from sin required Zwingli to come up with some new reason for baptizing anyone, especially infants. He developed such a reason between 1523 and 1525. His search led him to conclude that it is wrong to distinguish an Old Covenant from a New Covenant. There is, he said, just ONE COVENANT from Abraham through today. (This is the real origin of modern covenant theology.)

Since there is just one covenant, there is only one covenant people; OT Israelites and NT Christians are all one continuous body called “the church.” Thus there can be only one covenant sign. That covenant sign began with Abraham in the form of circumcision, and after Christ’s death it was changed to baptism. But these two forms have the same meaning all the way through—baptism is simply equivalent to the circumcision of the OT, and has the same meaning.

What is this (as Zwingli now understands it) new meaning for baptism? It is twofold. (a) As a covenant sign, it is the baptized person’s (or if an infant, the parents’) pledge of allegiance to the Christian community that he is one of them. Zwingli gets this from circumcision, and also from the Latin word sacramentum (pledge, oath). I.e., since baptism is a sacrament, it is the baptized person’s pledge or oath to live the Christian life. (b) Also, like circumcision, baptism is the SIGN that the baptized person belongs to the covenant people. This is where the idea of baptism as a covenant sign comes from. I.e., this assumes that the baptized person is already saved, and that the baptism is just a way of demonstrating that for the sake of the audience.

This view was taken over by John Calvin, and most Protestants have adopted it in one form or another.

3. In section three of this essay, I respond to a prominent “pastor’s” challenge to my essay after its original publication in the Christian Standard (2004). I conclude, “Every NT reference to the meaning of baptism clearly depicts it as a salvation event.”

C. “Faith, Works, and Baptism: Paul Vs. Jesus?” (pp. 45-66). The last major essay I wrote before beginning this summary of volumes 1-17 of my Collected Writings series was titled “Works, Baptism, and Salvation: Refuting Zwinglianism and Galatianism.” I refer to the subject dealt with there as perhaps the most important (and perhaps revolutionary) discovery that I have made in my 60 years of Biblical study.

1. My thinking in this direction started with accepting Martin Luther’s response to Zwingli’s argument that baptism cannot be for salvation since that would make salvation a work of man. Luther retorts that baptism is not MAN’S work, but GOD’S! I accepted this at face value for a long time, but at some recent point I began to think there is more to it than this—because in reality baptism IS “something YOU do”—which is the way most people define the term “works.”

That’s where this present essay comes into the picture. I noticed something in John 6:26-29 that seems to conflict with Paul’s teaching about faith, works, and salvation, such as in Ephesians 2:8-9, i.e., by grace we are saved, through FAITH, but not by WORKS. In John 6, Jesus describes FAITH with the language of works, meaning that faith itself is a work of the believer! Yet especially in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, Paul SEPARATES faith from works! How can we explain this? This led me to realize—and here is my “discovery”—that Paul cannot be using the term “works” in the same sense as Jesus is using it. Jesus is using it in the common, generic meaning of “something you do,” but this cannot be the case with Paul! At first this raises the question of whether there is a conflict between Paul and Jesus. We find the answer to this question to be NO when we see that Paul is using the term “works” in a sense that is different from that of Jesus. So, what is that different sense?

2. Next, I deal with inadequate answers to the way some try to define “works” as such. Norman Geisler, for example, says that faith and works are different because faith is an internal act and works—such as baptism—are external acts. And only the external ones are excluded from salvation. But Geisler ignores the fact that in Romans 10:9-10 Paul combines confession (an EXTERNAL act—v. 9) with faith (an internal one) as equally related to salvation as conditions for it. Also, many others try to limit Paul’s use of “works” to obedience to the Law of Moses, which is completely inconsistent with the way Paul uses the term through the early chapters of Romans.

3. Ultimately I came to see this answer to the question of how Paul defines works: in his vocabulary, “works” means any human response—whether obedience or disobedience (sins)—to whatever LAW CODE one is living under. The key is their relation to God’s laws. Paul even calls works—WORKS OF LAW, and uses this term as equivalent to WORKS by itself.

Also important is the fact that the “works” used thus as “works of law” are still “things we do,” i.e., works in the generic sense. So how are these works different from the “thing we do” called baptism? And how are they different from the “thing we do—John 6) called faith? How is one kind of work consistent with grace salvation, and the other not? Because the former kind of work (things we do for salvation) are in a DIFFERENT CATEGORY of “things we do.” Paul himself identifies this other category when he speaks of things we do that ARE consistent with grace and without which we cannot be saved. What is this other category, which is different from “works of law”? It is OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL—not to the law. See Romans 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8. This kind of obedience is simply meeting the four (or five) conditions that God has laid down for receiving salvation: (hearing), faith, repentance, confession, and being baptized. NEVER in the NT is baptism described as obeying a law command; like faith, it is always obedience to a gospel command.

D. “The Tyranny of the Paradigm” (pp. 67-82). If both Scripture and logic are so strong in declaring baptism to be a salvation event, why is there such loyalty to the Zwinglian revision? I am suggesting in this essay that once the concept of “faith only” (sola fidei) was ensconced within most Protestants’ theology, it was accepted simply because it was there and was made to fit, no matter what. This way of thinking is what I am calling “the tyranny of the paradigm.”

1. I encountered this concept in the book by a once-evolutionist, Michael Denton: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986). Denton at first was a staunch believer in evolution; but the more he studied the literature and so-called science used to “prove” it, the more he saw—there’s nothing there! There is simply no valid evidence for it! So why does “everyone” keep acting and talking and writing as if it is valid? He claims (rightly) that it is a prime example of what philosopher Thomas Kuhn calls “the priority of the paradigm.” I.e., so many believe and defend it, it just must be true.

I have changed the term to the TYRANNY of the paradigm. For Denton, the paradigm was evolution. So what is the paradigm in the context of baptism? Simply put, it is the Zwinglian error of sola fidei, “by faith alone.”

2. In part two of this essay I give several examples of how, within most Protestant theology, sola fidei is an unchallengeable assumption, a tyrannical paradigm that is imposed on the whole of Scripture. And I show how weak the assumption is. I will not try to give details here, but I guarantee that you will be convinced that the sola fidei paradigm, despite its wide use, is a key reason for the common rejection of baptism as a salvation event.

E. The Rest of Part One.

1. “Paul and Jerry Discuss Baptism” (pp. 83-89). Here I create a conversation about baptism in which the Apostle Paul crushes a representative Protestant named Jerry (a name I chose because of the prominence of Jerry Falwell at the time of writing, 1984).

2. “Is Baptism the First Step of Obedience?” (pp. 91-98). NO. This is Zwinglian language. Baptism is the FINAL step of obedience to the gospel, and it does not fall at all into the category of obedience to the law (i.e., Christian living).

PART TWO: BAPTISM AND SALVATION

A. In What Sense Is Baptism Necessary? In this section, the first four essays deal broadly with how we should use the terms “essential” and “necessary” when referring to baptism. These essays are thus: (a) “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” (pp. 101-106). (b) “The Essentiality of Baptism” (pp. 107-111). (c) “What Is the Spiritual Status of Those Baptized Unbiblically” (pp. 113-120). (d) The ‘Pious Unimmersed’ ” (pp. 121-124).

The bottom line is that baptism is not absolutely (logically) necessary for salvation, because there are at least three and probably four categories of people whom we consider saved, though they are not baptized. They are (a) infants and children up to the age of accountability; (b) OT believers; (c) NT believers whose physical circumstances make it impossible to be baptized before they die (called “the baptism of desire” in early Christianity); and (d) NT believers who had no real chance of understanding the NT baptismal requirement, but are sincerely doing the best they can to live a life of submission to Jesus. They are said to be yielding up their conscientious response to available light. (This last one is controversial, but I defend it.)

A main point is that (in this last case) only God can discern and apply this principle. It cannot figure into the way we must teach baptism, which is this: We must teach and apply baptism as necessary for salvation because this is what the Word of God says is the purpose of this act in this New Covenant era. God says it is the moment of time when He promises to bestow salvation upon sinners. This is God’s rule, and we are bound by it. If God wants to make an exception to it, this is His right alone. We cannot do it.

B. The Last Three Lessons in Part Two.

1. “Does the Sinner Have Life Before the New Birth?” (pp. 125-129). NO. This refutes the false assumption that if baptism is the time of the new birth, then the person must have been conceived or begotten (given new life) before baptism.
2. “Can One Be ‘Spiritually Alive’ Without Baptism?” (pp. 131-138). Same answer: NO.
3. “Is Rebaptism Ever Necessary?” (pp. 139-149). Answer YES—with discernment.

PART THREE: MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS

1. “What Is the ‘One Baptism’ in Ephesians 4:5?” (pp. 153-156). There IS only one baptism in the Christian era. It combines external baptism in water and internal baptism in the Holy Spirit into ONE event.
2. “Was Christian Baptism Something New?” (pp. 157-160). YES. Not necessarily in its FORM, but definitely in its PURPOSE.
3. “Is Baptism Part of the Gospel?” (pp. 161-164). YES. It is obedience to a gospel command.
4. “Does 1 Corinthians 1:17 Diminish Baptism?” (pp. 165-167). NO. Context is the key.
5. “Baptism as ‘Calling on His Name’ ” (pp. 169-171). This is the true “sinner’s prayer.”) See Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21.
6. “John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism” (pp. 173-177). There is NO continuity or equation between the two. Do NOT use Jesus’s baptism by John as a reason why anyone today should be baptized.
7. “What Is the ‘Baptism in Fire’ in Matthew 3:11?” (pp. 179-182). It is NOT the baptism of the lost in the fires of hell. It is the PURIFYING fire of sanctification given to those baptized in water.
8. “Questions About Acts 2:38” (pp. 183-187).
9. “Baptism and Original Sin” (pp. 189-192). In early church history (c. A.D. 200), the idea of original sin and the practice of infant baptism were introduced at the same time. Until Zwingli, belief in original sin was the main rationale for infant baptism. BUT: babies are NOT born in original sin; Romans 5:12-19 teaches that Jesus’s death on the cross removed anything like this from babies.
10. “The Age of Accountability” (pp. 193-197). It comes with recognition of being sinful and condemned before God and His law. It has nothing to do with what one thinks of Jesus.
11. “Is Baptism a Sacrament?” (pp. 199-202). NO; there is no such category in Biblical teaching.
12. “Baptism for the Dead” (pp. 203-206). One reason YOU are baptized is so that you can be with saved loved ones who have already died and are in heaven waiting for you.
13. “Baptism as Trine (Triple) Immersion?” (pp. 207-211). NO. This was a short-lived experiment in the second-century church, based on a misunderstanding of Matthew 28:18-20.
14. “What Is the Best Time for Baptism?” (213-216). As soon as possible after faith, repentance, and confession have been experienced.
15. “Preaching on Baptism” (pp. 217-219). A preacher’s great testimony at the end.