IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL?

IS BAPTISM ESSENTIAL?

People who argue that baptism is not essential for salvation often engage in cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics to reconcile their theological predispositions with scriptural texts that appear to contradict their views. This process typically involves hermeneutical contortionism, selective exegesis, and textual deconstructionism, all of which allow for a reinterpretation of biblical mandates that would otherwise demand a more straightforward reading.

1. Cognitive Dissonance and Theological Bias

Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals encounter scriptural imperatives that conflict with their preexisting doctrinal convictions. For example, passages such as Mark 16:16 ("Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved") and Acts 2:38 ("Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins") create a theological tension for those who adhere to the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone).

To alleviate this dissonance, rather than adjusting their theology to align with Scripture, individuals engage in rationalization strategies that either diminish the explicit necessity of baptism or reframe its role in the salvific process.

2. Mental Gymnastics Through Selective Exegesis

Rather than employing a holistic and contextual reading of Scripture, those who downplay baptism often engage in proof-texting, where verses are lifted out of context to support a predetermined conclusion. For instance:

They may emphasize passages such as Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith... not by works") while categorically excluding verses that speak to baptism as a necessary component of salvation.

They might redefine "works" to include baptism, despite the fact that baptism is consistently presented in the New Testament as an act of obedience rather than a meritorious work of human effort.

3. Textual Deconstructionism: Reordering and Recontextualizing Scripture

One of the most insidious forms of mental gymnastics involves the deliberate reordering and semantic manipulation of biblical passages to arrive at a conclusion that the original text does not support. For instance:

In Acts 22:16, Paul is instructed, "Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Instead of acknowledging the causal relationship between baptism and the washing away of sins, some argue that "calling on His name" is the salvific act, with baptism merely being a symbolic ritual.

This interpretation reverses the order of the command and detaches baptism from its stated function.

Similarly, in 1 Peter 3:21 ("Baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God"), some argue that since Peter clarifies that baptism is not about physical cleansing, this must mean it is not necessary for salvation—despite the text explicitly stating that baptism now saves you.

4. The Psychological Comfort of Doctrinal Inertia

For many, rejecting the necessity of baptism is not merely an exegetical issue but a deeply ingrained theological tradition. Accepting that baptism is required for salvation would mean admitting that previous teachings were incomplete or incorrect. To avoid this unsettling realization, individuals retrofit their interpretation of Scripture to conform to preexisting dogma, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Conclusion

Through cognitive dissonance reduction, mental gymnastics, and hermeneutical manipulation, individuals circumvent the clear and cohesive biblical teaching on baptism. By engaging in theological cherry-picking, syntactical distortions, and reinterpretation of biblical imperatives, they construct an ideological framework that is internally coherent yet externally incongruent with the explicit testimony of Scripture. In doing so, they elevate human tradition over divine revelation, ultimately prioritizing doctrinal comfort over biblical fidelity.