Why I’m No Longer a Baptist: The Branches

This is hopefully one of many short essays explaining and ‘exegeting’ passages that I once either ignored, didn’t know how to interpret, or just never saw in such a way. I encourage my reformed baptist brothers and sisters to consider this article, and to refrain from such radical accusations, such as “heretic” or “repent” that have so corrupted and defiled the reputation of the baptist denomination.

As a Baptist I always had some hard time reading and understanding passages that would seem to imply that a man could lose his salvation. Terminology that signified the cutting off of some from God, people who left and profaned the blood of the covenant, bringing down a fearful judgment of God upon their head, and the contrast between someone partaking of the Spirit, experiencing His work and then departing. Now of course I was a Calvinist and had an interpretation of those passages, however they really didn’t make too much sense in light of a covenant that consisted only of regenerate believers.

These men that are described in the passages left something. I do think that there exists in the Baptist mindset, at least it did in mine, a hesitation to say things like “someone left the body of Christ” without feeling the need to follow up with “But I mean he never really was in the body, because we don’t lose our salvation”.  Since I was a Baptist, I believed that you had to be regenerate to be in the new covenant, which forced me to view apostasy either as one losing their salvation or as “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19), even though that text was directly speaking of antichrists in the last hour the church was in. I was a Calvinist so I knew men couldn’t lose their salvation, since the elect will receive regeneration. However, because of the absence of understanding covenant theology I lacked the basis to see these passages in light of covenant continuity. Instead of equating covenant membership with salvation, something the Old Testament never did, there exists a meaning that is in line with other New Testament teachings, such as a theonomy, federal headship of the household, and sanctions.

I’m going to deal with these passages in a logical, exegetical manner that will show the inconsistency of my former dispensational (creedo-baptist) interpretation, and the sufficiency of the covenantal (paedobaptist) exegesis. Again, my arguments are covenantal, not the traditional argument from the accounts of baptism.

In Romans 11 Paul speaks of branches, a tree, and the cutting and grafting of two distinct branches. In order to get some context, we must look at the previous arguments Paul has presented in the rest of Romans and understand why Paul speaks of these branches in the first place.

Starting from the beginning of the book of Romans Paul declares his ministry of the gospel and its power and relation to all types of men. The gospel is damning to the unbeliever, a terrible promise of judgment, and it is salvation to the believer. In chapter two, Paul speaks of the law and works of the law being made clear to Jews and Gentiles. Chapter three declares the sinfulness of man due to the law of God; that no man is legally good before God’s throne because he has not kept the law perfectly. Chapter four corrects the notion that the law is bad and therefore should be thrown out. Paul declares that the law is good, but men are the problem. He makes clear that Abraham was not even saved by his own works, but by faith.

Now, in chapter five Paul begins to distinctly speak covenant language.

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—“ Romans 5:12

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” v. 14

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” v. 18

This language is covenant language, because a covenant has a representative. The representative for us in the first covenant was Adam; hence the reason that sin is imputed to all men, being that Adam broke that covenant. This is where I believe a consistent denial of covenant theology leads to Pelagianism. If there is no covenant theology, then Adam is not the federal head (representative) for mankind, and therefore sin is not imputed to his descendants, which is a denial of original sin. Pelagians believe that men are born blanks sheets of paper, that they learn evil, not naturally do it.

Paul makes a strong case for covenant theology by speaking of Adam’s sin being imputed to all men. This does not necessitate that all men will be made righteous in the same way, since the sinner must have repentance and faith that perseveres. This is the important distinction between “Once saved always saved” (OSAS) and the fifth point of Calvinism, perseverance of the saints.

The OSAS lacks recognition of those who sprout up for a while, then fall away (Matthew 13:5-6). Perseverance of the Saints recognizes the requirement to persevere in faith and repentance. We see this doctrine made crystal clear by New Testament authors. (Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Luke 21:19, James 2:17) A man can be in covenant with God, just as men have been all through the Old Testament, and can still not receive salvation because of their unbelief. (Romans 11:20-21, Hebrews 3:19) Israel was in covenant with God, had received the oracles, the law, but they failed to receive what was promised.

“Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,” Romans 9:32

Men must not just be in the covenant, but must persevere in faith and repentance; these are the terms laid out by the New Testament writers. The new covenant is conditional; men must repent and believe and persevere in that faith and repentance, else they’ve profaned the blood of the covenant, awaiting expectation of judgment.

To summarize chapters 6, 7, and 8, Paul touches on living by faith, even though we aren’t justified by works, submitting to God’s law, the struggle within himself and the glorious benefits in Jesus Christ.

In chapter 9 Paul expresses his sincerity for his kinsmen, Israel according to the flesh, because they have hardened their hearts and have not received the promise. Now at this point Paul will make a distinction between the visible Israel and the invisible (or elect). Both were in the covenant of God, as we shall see in chapter 11, yet only the elect obtained it and were considered to be of Abraham.

“And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,” Romans 9:27

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, “ Romans 9:30-33

You see, the conditions of God’s salvation have always been the same. Men were saved in the Old Testament the same way men are saved by today; by faith. It is by grace alone and has always been by grace alone, that sinners are saved.

Now we arrive at Romans 10 and 11, two of the most important chapters when dealing with post-resurrection Israel. Chapter 10 is devoted to explaining why Israel has fallen from the covenant, and why they did not obtain what was promised. Paul gives several reasons, most of them being with God’s plan of election, however Paul also accompanies these secret decrees of God with practical means by which He accomplished this. Israel had not all obeyed the gospel (v.16) and compares them to the disobedient generation in the Exodus. (v.21)

Chapter 11 is the passage that we have gathered this entire context for. In chapter 11 Paul continues his argument and point from chapter 10, by asking the hypothetical “Has God rejected His people?”. The answer given is the same that Elijah had received; that although it looks as though all of Israel has been cut off and rejected, the exists a remnant that has not bowed their knee to another god. And notice what Paul says,

“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Romans 11:5-6

The terms of the covenant are faith and repentance, but the common denominator Paul uses is grace. Faith and repentance are of God’s grace, and if a man perseveres in faith and repentance then that also is by grace. Nothing we do is by our own merit; it’s all of grace. So, we can be in the new covenant and fall away, because we need God’s grace to persevere in faith and repentance, not that we earn salvation from these works, rather God gives regeneration, faith, and works to His elect, but does not necessarily give the reprobate persevering faith and repentance, but only a temporary one. (Hebrews 10:29)

The biggest issue I had as a creedo-baptist was with Romans 11 is in interpreting what the cutting off of branches meant. Here is the passage.

“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.” Romans 11:17-24

Here’s a logical outline for my argument:
1. Branches represent two distinct groups of people, Jews and Gentiles, while the tree is God’s covenants.
2. The branches do not include all individuals, since not all individuals will be saved, much less the Jews.
3. The cutting off represents cutting off from God’s covenant, something that can still happen in the NC according to Paul.
4. If being in the covenant necessitates salvation then Romans 11 teaches the loss of salvation.
5. However, if being in the covenant does not necessitate salvation then the cutting off described is apostasy, not a loss of salvation.
6. Branches can still be broken off in the new covenant, therefore either we can lose our salvation (if the NC necessitates regeneration) or we’re simply cut off from union with Christ through the body and covenant blessings, whereas NC membership would not necessitate salvation.

So you see, we can still today be broken off from God’s covenant, but that does not necessitate that we had salvation and lost it. God’s elect will persevere to the end, with saving faith and good works.