I got to have lunch with Mark Edge the other day. Mark and I were roommates in college and coworkers in Argentina. As he and I talked, I mentioned how one scholarly friend had shown incredible bias in a comment on Facebook. Mark shrugged and said, “I’ve learned that nobody is exempt from that.” (No, not a direct quote; but that’s the gist)

When studying the issue of baptism, it helps to spot the biases in the discussion, both ours and those of others. This can be an emotionally charged issue, especially for those of us in the churches of Christ. We’ve held a minority view on the subject of baptism for years. (Ironically, as much of the evangelical world moves to give more respect to baptism, an equal proportion within churches of Christ are moving the other way)

Undoubtedly, many were overly zealous in the past in discussions about baptism, elevating this act of faith to the status of a saving work. This led many to react and overreact, including some scholars. One that I feel must have had dealings with aggressive members of our fellowship was the Greek scholar A.T. Robertson.

One of the first investments in Bible study resources that I made as a student was the purchase of Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. (You can consult this set online online on many sites, including Bible Study Tools) That’s an excellent resource to give insights into the original Greek text. The reader needs to be aware, however, of Robertson’s anti-baptism bias.

Here are some examples:

The omission of baptized with “disbelieveth” would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark. (Mark 16:16)
One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. (Acts 2:38)
And Simon also himself believed (Ho de Simwn kai auto episteusen). Note the same verb in the aorist tense episteusen. What did he believe? Evidently that Jesus was this “power of God” not himself (Simon). He saw that the miracles wrought by Philip in the name of Christ were genuine while he knew that his own were frauds. He wanted this power that Philip had to add to his own pretensions. “He was probably half victim of self-delusion, half conscious impostor” (Furneaux). He was determined to get this new “power,” but had no sense of personal need of Jesus as Saviour for his sins. So he submitted to baptism (baptisqei, first aorist passive participle of baptizw), clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation. (Acts 8:13)
It is possible, as in Acts 2:38 , to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul’s vivid and picturesque language. (Acts 22:16)
In the symbol of baptism the resurrection to new life in Christ is pictured with an allusion to Christ’s own resurrection and to our final resurrection. Paul does not mean to say that the new life in Christ is caused or created by the act of baptism. That is grossly to misunderstand him. The Gnostics and the Judaizers were sacramentalists, but not so Paul the champion of spiritual Christianity. (Colossians 2:12)

Time and again, Robertson argues not from the evidence of the text or grammatical constructions, but from his own previously held beliefs (as he states clearly in the discussion of Acts 2:38). As long as we recognize that fact, we can include Robertson’s views in any discussion. He is one man stating his opinion, standing on the same ground as any other. But if we try to present him as a scholar on this subject, we’re on dangerous ground.