I write this post as a Catholic layman, not as a theologian. No doubt my speculation misses the mark, needing elaboration and correction. At least it’s useful, I hope, for prodding one to think deeper about the doctrine of baptism than what’s taught in a child’s catechism (as precious as that tool is for beginning to form one’s understanding of the faith). 

A rule is not made of exceptions, but of the norm. Pointing out exceptions too much, placing undue emphasis on them, often is done to discount the rule. It’s a tactic used to support relativism against objective truth. Such fallacious reasoning is used in many areas of enquiry, like differentiating between the sexes, for example–pointing out an anomaly to deny the male-female dichotomy. 

Some rules are necessary and sufficient, with no exceptions; others are one or the other, but not both; others are neither–as with baptism, I think.

Consider the if/then rules you learned in an introductory logic class:

• If p then q. P is sufficient for q, but q might be true even if p is not. 
• Q is necessary for p; if q is false, p cannot be true. 
• P if and only (iff) if q; both p and q are necessary and sufficient conditions.  

Relate this to Baptism and Salvation:  

1. If B then S. This means B is sufficient, but not necessary, for S.
2. If S then B. This means that B is necessary, but not sufficient, for S.
3. B iff S. This means that both are necessary and sufficient. To be saved, one must be baptized; and to be baptized is to be saved. 

Consider statement I. Is baptism sufficient for salvation? 

• If one is baptized, one is saved. 
• If one is not saved, one is not baptized.
• If one is saved, one might or might not be baptized. 

What of the one who gives a false confession of faith for gaining some earthly good?

Consider statement II. Is baptism necessary for salvation? 

• If one is saved, one is baptized.
• If one is not baptized, one is not saved. 
• If one is baptized, one might or might not be saved. 

What of the one with the desire for baptism who dies before being baptized? 

Oops! He was run over by a truck and killed on his way to being baptized. God must have condemned him to hell. 

What of the one believing in and professing Jesus, but is unaware of the normative requirement of baptism or who isn’t able to be baptized?

Jesus appeared to the Muslim in his room one night. The person fervently believed in him and repented of his sins–but without anyone around to baptize him. So much for his soul, I guess. 

Consider statement III. Are baptism and salvation both necessary and sufficient conditions for the other?  Given the above examples, work this one out on your own. 

Baptism is the norm; baptism by desire, and those unaware of baptism but who are redeemed,or those unable to be baptized, are the exceptions. Exceptions do not abolish the rule. If one refuses baptism, knowing it is commanded, one cannot be saved (I leave this topic for another post). 

This post is a basic beginning point for thinking about baptism, with no biblical or historical theology provided. I hope it serves as an example, though, for having simple faith without being simplistic, for being intellectual without being hyper-skeptical or relativistic. Too often, we don’t know our faith or we know it only superficially, without deeper understanding, or we attempt to reason it away. 

Dan Anderson