Listen, subscribe, and leave a review on:
In our previous episode on baptism, we knew there would be pushback. And there was.
Rather than go back and forth endlessly in comment sections, Simeon and I decided to record a follow-up episode addressing some of the most common objections directly from Scripture. Our goal wasn’t to win arguments — it was to bring clarity and context.
Below is a summary of the key objections raised — and how we responded.
1. “Paul said he wasn’t sent to baptize” (1 Corinthians 1)
The Objection:
If Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” doesn’t that prove baptism isn’t essential?
Our Response:
Context matters.
Paul is addressing division within the Corinthian church. People were aligning themselves with personalities — “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” etc. His point wasn’t that baptism was unnecessary. His point was that he was grateful he hadn’t personally baptized many of them so they couldn’t claim loyalty to him.
In the same passage, Paul clearly says he did baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. So baptism was happening. He just wasn’t the one performing all of them.
Even more importantly, Paul himself was baptized (Acts 22:16) and personally rebaptized believers in Acts 19.
There is no contradiction. Paul wasn’t minimizing baptism — he was correcting division.
2. “Baptism is commanded and important, but not necessary”
The Objection:
Yes, Jesus commanded baptism — but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary for salvation.
Our Response:
If Jesus commands something, obedience matters.
In Matthew 28:19, baptism is not presented as optional. It is part of disciple-making. In Mark 16:16, belief and baptism are linked together.
Throughout Acts (2, 8, 10, 19, 22), baptism is consistently tied to repentance, remission of sins, and entry into the body of Christ.
If something is commanded by Christ and practiced consistently by the apostles, it cannot be reduced to a symbolic add-on.
The early church did not treat baptism as optional. Neither should we.
3. “Baptism to wash away sins was only for the Jews”
The Objection:
Acts 2 was preached to Jews who had rejected Christ. Therefore, baptism for remission of sins applied uniquely to them.
Our Response:
Acts 10 eliminates this argument.
When the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius’ household (Gentiles), Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. He did not treat baptism as a Jewish corrective measure. He treated it as part of salvation.
Acts 19 shows Paul rebaptizing Gentiles in the name of Jesus.
Scripture teaches that all have sinned and rejected God (Romans 3:23). The need for remission of sins is universal — not ethnic.
Baptism was not a Jewish exception. It became the apostolic pattern.
4. “John baptized people before Jesus”
The Objection:
If baptism was happening before Jesus’ death and resurrection, how can it be tied to salvation?
Our Response:
Acts 19 provides the clarity.
Paul encounters disciples who had only received John’s baptism. He explains that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, pointing forward to Christ. When they understood this, they were baptized again — this time in the name of Jesus.
This shows two things:
- The act of immersion alone isn’t what saves.
- Christian baptism is distinct from John’s baptism.
John prepared the way. Jesus fulfilled it.
Christian baptism is tied to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3–4).
5. “All you have to do is confess” (Romans 10:9)
The Objection:
Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be saved. Isn’t that enough?
Our Response:
Romans was written to believers — the church.
When Paul wrote Romans, the Roman church already existed. How were they brought into the church? Through the Acts pattern — repentance, baptism, receiving the Spirit.
Romans 10 does not override Acts 2.
Furthermore, confession and belief do not contradict baptism — they complement it. Faith expresses itself in obedience (James 2:17).
The Bible never shows an apostle leading someone in a “confession prayer” as the entirety of salvation. Every detailed conversion account in Acts includes repentance and baptism.
If we isolate Romans 10 from the broader biblical narrative, we create tension that Scripture itself does not create.
6. “What about the thief on the cross?”
The Objection:
The thief wasn’t baptized — yet Jesus said he would be in paradise.
Our Response:
This event occurred before the resurrection.
The New Covenant was not yet in effect. Jesus had not yet died, risen, or poured out His Spirit.
The thief lived and died under the Old Covenant framework. Jesus, still alive, had authority to forgive sins directly.
After the resurrection, the apostles preached repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus.
The thief on the cross is not the normative model for New Covenant salvation — Acts 2 is.
The Bigger Issue: Skipping the Book of Acts
One of the biggest patterns we addressed is this:
Many people read the Gospels…
Skip Acts…
And then interpret the Epistles as if Acts never happened.
But Acts shows us how the apostles actually preached and applied the gospel.
If we want to understand salvation, we cannot ignore the book that shows us how people were saved.
Final Thought
This conversation wasn’t about being argumentative. It was about being consistent.
When you read:
- Matthew 28
- Mark 16
- Acts 2
- Acts 8
- Acts 10
- Acts 19
- Acts 22
- Romans 6
- 1 Peter 3
You begin to see a consistent pattern.
Baptism was:
- Commanded
- Immediate
- Connected to repentance
- Connected to the name of Jesus
- Connected to new life
Our view is simple:
Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
If you’re wrestling with these questions, I encourage you to read the Book of Acts slowly — without preloaded assumptions — and ask: what did the apostles actually experience for themselves and preach?
That’s always a good place to start.
Connect with us on social:
Instagram: @thehackapodcast
Facebook: The Hacka Podcast
YouTube: Subscribe Here
The Hacka Podcast 
Leave a comment