John MacArthur, a well-known author, teacher, and the host of the Grace to You radio program, falsely teaches that water baptism is not needed for salvation. In his article, “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” he attempts to establish scriptural proof for this position. One particular argument will be examined here. He says,

“If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?” (par. 3)

The sincere teacher is wrong and inconsistent in this approach. For example, MacArthur preaches that it is a fundamental gospel fact that Jesus is the Son of God. He is absolutely right, but in Acts 8:5-13, not once is the evangelist Phillip recorded saying this while preaching to the Samaritans. If it’s necessary for us to believe Jesus is God’s Son, why didn’t Phillip say so in Acts 8? Why didn’t Phillip mention repentance, which MacArthur also believes is necessary? As can be seen, therefore, baptism isn’t the only crucial element absent from some of these passages. Why is this?

It must be remembered that the main objective of the book of Acts is to chronicle the history of the early church and work of the Apostles, and thus not every individual sermon or account of evangelism found therein was intended by Luke (the book’s author) to teach the reader how to be saved. Luke is not trying to present the gospel in its entirety every time he records somebody preaching. But the Bible as a whole teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, that we must repent, and that we must be baptized. Therefore, we can conclude that when Luke says Phillip “preached Christ unto them” this includes all the essentials, even though Luke did not explicitly state all of them. Phillip “preached Jesus” to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:35, and contrary to MacArthur’s theology, water baptism is definitely included in “preaching Jesus” because the eunuch responded by asking to be baptized (v. 36).

In the same article, MacArthur reasons similarly regarding 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.  But in this passage Paul is not trying to teach the gospel, but is merely summarizing it in terms of its core.   He uses the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to make a point about the resurrection of the dead. In fact, MacArthur admits Paul is giving a “concise summary” (par. 4).  Exactly right, Mr. MacArthur! It’s a summary, not a detailed exposition. It will do well to note again that Jesus’ Sonship doesn’t appear in the text. Paul is not attempting to teach the Corinthians, who were already Christians, what to do to be saved. He had no need to be comprehensive.

MacArthur should realize his reasoning is flawed. In his article, “Repentance in the Gospel of John” he refutes the idea that repentance is insignificant despite the lack of the subject in John’s Gospel.  He says, “Repentance underlies all John’s writings. It is understood, not necessarily explicit. His readers were so familiar with the apostolic message that he didn’t need to dwell on the issue of repentance” (27^th par.). Isn’t it plausible the same argument may be used for baptism? Although clearly taught and commanded for salvation in many passages, it doesn’t need to be so in every case for us to know it is required. In such places, to quote MacArthur, “it is understood.”

Along with this, MacArthur asks why Peter, in Acts 3, didn’t say baptism was necessary. But Peter did say it was necessary in Acts 2:38. MacArthur offers alternative interpretations for Acts 2:38, but the text is clear. The conjunction “and” joins repentance and baptism, and both precede the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, Peter unequivocally says baptism “saves us” in 1 Peter 3:21. [Note: MacArthur alleges that Holy Spirit baptism is being considered in 1 Peter 3:21, not water baptism. But this ignores the obvious keys in the text such as the link to the water previously noted (v. 20), and the reference to the “removal of dirt from the body,” which, of course, is an effect of water.]

Ultimately we must conclude that on this topic, MacArthur is inconsistent and mistaken.  To depart from the message that baptism is a part of God’s plan for salvation is to depart from the gospel preached by Peter and the other apostle’s so long ago.  The Bible is plain enough. Alien sinners must be baptized for the remission of sins to be saved.

Article by: Andrew Richardson