Abstract: This article examines the argument that using belief passages in Scripture to negate the necessity of baptism constitutes a logical fallacy. By exploring the concepts of cherry-picking evidence, contextual misinterpretation, and the inconsistency inherent in such arguments, we establish the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith in the New Testament understanding of salvation.

Introduction

The relationship between belief and baptism has been a focal point in theological discourse regarding the nature of salvation. Some proponents of a belief-centric view assert that passages emphasizing belief negate the need for baptism. This selective approach to Scripture can be identified as a logical fallacy, particularly the fallacy of cherry-picking. Such reasoning undermines the coherence of the New Testament and presents challenges to a holistic understanding of salvation.

This article is not attempting to cover every argument and discussion on baptism. Those are addressed and will be addressed in other writings. The sole aim of this article is to address the use of New Testament passages that reference explicitly belief’s role in salvation with the assumption that those passages negate any other passages that correlate baptism to salvation. As though they somehow “trump” any reference to baptism in the New Testament. This article attempts to show that this assumption is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, and shows a misunderstanding of a complete, holistic interpretation of the continuity of the New Testament.

1. Understanding Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy[1] is defined as an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. In this context, the fallacy arises when belief passages are invoked to dismiss or diminish the importance of baptism passages, thereby leading to contradictory conclusions within the biblical narrative. The specific fallacy often encountered here is a hasty generalization, where a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or selective evidence with disregard to context, scriptural continuity, etc.

2. The Fallacy of Cherry-Picking Evidence

Cherry-picking refers to the practice of selectively presenting data or evidence to support a particular conclusion while ignoring relevant information that may counter it. This practice is particularly evident when individuals cite passages such as John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”) to argue that belief alone is sufficient for salvation.

Such an argument disregards the broader context of Scripture, which includes numerous passages emphasizing the importance of baptism as an integral part of the salvation process. For instance, in Acts 2:38, Peter explicitly connects repentance and baptism: “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.” The selective use of belief passages creates a misleading narrative that undermines the comprehensive teachings of the New Testament.

3. Logical Fallacy of False Dichotomy

Assuming that passages emphasizing belief imply that belief is the sole requirement for salvation, while disregarding passages that connect baptism, repentance, and confession to salvation, creates a false dichotomy[2]—the notion that there are only two options: belief or nothing else. This binary thinking ignores the complexity and interconnectedness of various components of salvation as presented in Scripture.

The existence of various scriptural passages that address belief, repentance, confession, and baptism together indicates that these elements are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent.

4. The Flawed Premise: Belief as the Sole Essential Component

Assumption of Exclusivity

At the core of the argument that certain passages advocate for “belief only” is the assumption that any scriptural reference to belief inherently excludes other essential elements of salvation. This interpretation suggests that if a passage mentions only belief, it must imply that belief is the sole requirement.
This reasoning is inherently flawed, as it reduces complex theological concepts to overly simplistic interpretations. Just because a passage emphasizes belief does not logically follow that it negates the necessity of other components such as repentance, baptism, or confession.

Contextual Neglect

The assumption fails to take into account the broader context of Scripture. Many biblical passages discuss belief in specific contexts that do not preclude other necessary responses to God’s grace.
For instance, the Gospel of John frequently emphasizes belief as essential (e.g., John 3:16, John 20:31), yet it also contains verses that highlight the importance of actions accompanying that belief (e.g., John 14:15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"). The failure to recognize this interplay suggests a narrow interpretation that overlooks the comprehensive biblical narrative.

Reductionism in Theology

By asserting that passages discussing belief imply “belief only,” proponents of this view engage in reductionism, stripping away the richness and depth of biblical faith. The New Testament presents faith as a multifaceted response that encompasses belief, repentance, confession, and action—each reinforcing the others.
For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter calls for repentance and baptism in response to belief: “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.” This illustrates that belief does not stand alone but is part of a broader, interconnected framework of faith.

Contextual Misinterpretation

Many belief passages do not inherently negate the necessity of baptism; rather, they affirm the essential role of belief within the broader framework of salvation. For example, Romans 10:9 articulates, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This passage underscores the significance of belief and confession but does not preclude the command of baptism articulated in Matthew 28:19(“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”).

The practice of isolating belief passages to invalidate baptism creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that one must choose between belief and baptism, rather than recognizing that both are essential and complementary elements of the faith experience.

Inconsistency in Interpretation

To assert that belief passages negate the necessity of baptism introduces a significant inconsistency in the interpretation of Scripture. If belief alone suffices for salvation, it raises the question of the relevance of baptism and other passages that explicitly mention its importance. This inconsistency may lead to the conclusion that the New Testament contradicts itself, which poses substantial theological and doctrinal challenges.

For example, Acts 2:38 not only emphasizes the need for repentance but also mandates baptism as a necessary response to belief. If one accepts that belief alone is sufficient for salvation, it becomes necessary to reinterpret or dismiss passages that speak to the necessity of baptism, which undermines the integrity of the biblical text as a cohesive message.

5. A Holistic View of Salvation

The New Testament presents salvation as a multi-faceted process encompassing belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith. The interrelationship of these components suggests that they are not mutually exclusive but rather integral to the believer’s journey. Each element contributes to a comprehensive understanding of salvation, and together they reflect a response to divine grace.

When believers approach Scripture with a mindset that recognizes the harmony among these elements, they can develop a more nuanced understanding of salvation as a transformative experience rather than a fragmented set of isolated beliefs. The practice of cherry-picking verses fails to capture the full narrative of Scripture and can lead to significant misinterpretations.

6. An Example of This Fallacy

A common argument in support of belief-only theology is the citation of Romans 3:21-31, which emphasizes justification by faith apart from the works of the law. Many proponents use this passage as a "proof text," asserting that belief alone is sufficient for salvation. However, this interpretation often overlooks the broader context of Paul’s teachings, particularly his subsequent discussion in Romans 6:1-5 regarding the role of baptism in salvation. This inconsistency not only raises concerns about interpretive integrity but also highlights a logical fallacy in the selective use of Scripture.

The Proof Text: Romans 3:21-31

“21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 227 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

This passage underscores the critical importance of faith in the justification process, leading some to conclude that works, including baptism, are unnecessary for salvation.

The Overlooked Continuation In the Same Context – Romans 6:1-5

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

In this passage, Paul explicitly connects baptism with the believer's identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. He highlights that baptism is an essential step in the process of entering into the new life offered through faith in Christ.

The Logical Fallacy of Selective Proof Texting

The reliance on Romans 3:21-31 as a proof text for belief-only theology while ignoring Romans 6:1-5 exemplifies cherry-picking.

By asserting that faith alone is sufficient for salvation based solely on Romans 3, proponents inadvertently introduce contradictions within Paul's own letter. If we interpret Romans 3 in isolation, we encounter a situation where one could argue that Paul contradicts himself in the context of the same letter—an untenable position that undermines the coherence of his theological message.

Let’s take this domino effect further. Since the Apostle Peter (another teacher of Baptism’s essentiality) considered Paul’s writings Inspired-Scripture (2 Peter 3:16-17) Then is Peter wrong about Paul, who (Based on this fallacy) contradicts himself? Didn’t Jesus, who also taught baptism (Mark 16:15-16; John 3:5; Matthew 28:18-20) and claimed to be divine, call Peter and Paul to teach what he taught them? You see the domino-effect that compromises the integrity of scripture when using proof-texts as a means to contradict other writings?

The Inconsistency of Internal Contradiction

Dr. William Lane Craig, Theologian and Apologist, had this to say about internal contradictions.

“for an interpretation to be coherent, it must be consistent within the context of the full biblical narrative...an approach that isolates passages or pits them against each other risks distorting the text’s intended meaning” [3]

If we consider the implications of this selective reading, we find that it poses significant problems for the integrity of Paul's teachings. It is one thing for different letters from Paul (or from different authors) to present seemingly conflicting views, which possibly can be reconciled through a broader understanding of context and purpose. However, it is entirely another matter if Paul contradicts himself within the same letter, as it suggests confusion or a lack of clarity in his theological framework.

In their widely respected work on biblical interpretation, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuard, caution against the approach of using isolated texts to draw exclusive conclusions.

"One of the most common errors in interpretation is the tendency to isolate individual texts and read them as complete theological statements rather than seeing them as parts of a larger discourse. Consistent interpretation requires reading in light of the entire narrative, where different aspects of faith work together rather than in isolation” (Fee & Stewart, p. 27) [4]

In light of Romans 6:1-5, it is evident that Paul does not espouse a belief-only theology; rather, he articulates a comprehensive understanding of salvation that incorporates both faith and baptism. The argument for a belief-only position, therefore, fails to acknowledge the harmonious relationship between these two elements as intended by Paul.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, the practice of using belief passages to negate the necessity of baptism passages constitutes a logical fallacy that oversimplifies and distorts the biblical understanding of salvation. Such reasoning creates a false dichotomy that undermines the integrated nature of belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith.

To assert that passages like Ephesians 2:4-8 nullify or override others such as Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-28, and Romans 6:1-5 reveals a misunderstanding of sound biblical interpretation. Rather than setting these texts in opposition, a holistic approach acknowledges how each contributes to the doctrine of salvation in a unified way. When we overlook or isolate certain verses, we risk diminishing the depth and consistency of Scripture’s message about faith and obedience. Through responsible hermeneutics, we can see that these passages together reveal salvation as both a gift of grace through faith and a call to faithful obedience, encompassing essential acts like baptism within the journey of faith.

When I say, ‘I believe baptism is essential for salvation’ and support this with scripture, I am not cherry-picking; I do not see passages about baptism as conflicting with passages that emphasize belief. To me, both John 3:16 and Acts 2:38 are equally doctrinal, essential, and binding. I do not believe in ‘only baptism saves,’ since baptism without belief, repentance, or confession is meaningless—someone immersed without faith has simply gotten wet. I would never teach ‘only baptism,’ because baptism passages are not in opposition to belief passages.

In contrast, to say ‘baptism is not essential for salvation’ requires explaining why John 3:16 would negate Acts 2:38. Even if one argues, ‘John 3:16 matters more because Jesus said it,’ this ignores that Jesus also commanded baptism in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16. Using authoritative, inspired New Testament scripture to argue against other authoritative scripture is poor hermeneutics.

Interpreting John 3:16 to confirm that belief is essential for salvation is logically sound. However, interpreting it to say ‘only belief is essential’ stretches beyond what the text explicitly or implicitly states and introduces bias. By contrast, reading 1 Peter 3:21—‘Baptism now saves you’—at face value supports the role of baptism in salvation without bias. Even if I had a bias favoring ‘baptism = salvation,’ this wouldn’t alter Peter’s explicit statement in favor or against. This interpretation may confirm a preconceived idea I already have, but the interpretation isn’t forced by my preconceived idea.

But what interpretive gymnastics are required to claim that ‘Baptism now saves’ (1 Peter 3:21) somehow means that baptism does not save?

When two passages appear to be in contradiction, several interpretative principles can help clarify their relationship:

Contextual Analysis: First, examine each passage within its immediate and broader context. Consider the historical, cultural, and literary contexts to determine how each passage’s setting informs its meaning. Context can often reveal that the apparent contradiction is a misunderstanding due to differing circumstances or audiences.
Authorial Intent: Understanding the author's intent can also be enlightening. Each biblical writer often has a specific purpose, emphasis, or audience that influences how a subject is presented. For example, Paul’s emphasis on faith over “works of the law” is specific to addressing Jewish legalism, not to deny the necessity of faith-based obedience.
Genre Consideration: Recognize the genre or literary style of the passage. Poetic, prophetic, historical, and didactic texts each communicate truth in unique ways. Some seeming contradictions arise from failing to interpret different genres appropriately.
Synthesis with Other Scriptures: We can often resolve apparent contradictions by synthesizing the passages with the whole of Scripture. Instead of isolating verses, interpret them within the larger biblical narrative. For example, considering Ephesians 2:8-9 alongside James 2:14-26 shows that faith and works of obedience are complementary rather than contradictory aspects of a faith-filled life.
Primary vs. Secondary Teachings: Identify whether a passage presents a primary doctrine or a secondary application. Primary doctrines are consistently reinforced across Scripture, whereas secondary applications might vary according to the context or audience.
Progressive Revelation: Recognize the Bible’s progressive revelation, where later teachings can clarify or expand earlier ones without contradicting them. For instance, New Testament teachings on grace and faith build upon Old Testament law, showing their fulfillment rather than canceling their truth.

To foster a comprehensive understanding of salvation, it is essential to approach Scripture with an openness that recognizes the interconnectedness of these elements, affirming their collective significance in the believer’s response to God’s grace. By embracing this holistic view, we can engage in a more meaningful exploration of the theological implications of salvation as presented in the New Testament.

[1] See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/false-dichotomy

[3] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed., Crossway, 2008.

[4] Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 4th ed., Zondervan, 2014.