9. Question: Is Water Baptism Essential to Salvation?
Let the New Testament Answer the Question for You
by Dave Brown
Note on the slides above: BibleThought.net goes out all over the world, and there are many to whom the terminology and practice of baptism is totally new and potentially strange. These slides and their comments are designed to provide understanding that there is nothing difficult or mystical about obeying this command. Baptism is not something that we do; it is something that we allow to be done to us. According to Colossians 2:12: "... having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God , who raised him from the dead."
A Survey of New Testament Teaching on the Subject of Water Baptism
Preliminary note: The article below contains an Introduction followed by 24 lessons. While this might indicate it to be a complex subject, it really is not. The articles on the Plan of Salvation or just the very first topic, are sufficient to present the bible truth with regard to baptism. It is not that this is a difficult subject; it is that men have had reasons to try to avoid these simple biblical teachings, and thus they have not taught the full truth on the subject, while adding many concepts that are not in the New Testament. Read through these lessons and we know you will come to the same conclusion as we have: there is no subject for which more definitive teaching is given in the New Testament than that of baptism. Much of the material presented will be redundant, showing over and over again the same basic truths from all of the passages on the subject.
INTRODUCTION
A systematic way to properly resolve biblical issues is to: (1) consider and write down all of the possible alternatives; and then (2) study all passages in the bible (or New Testament if it is a New Testament issue), and determine which of the alternatives has the greatest supporting evidence behind it. 2 Tim 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [handling aright -- ASV] the word of truth."
Arguing passages and counter-passages separate from a comprehensive view is a forever process with little hope of reaching any resolution or agreement. However, if our hearts are right we should be able to consider the preponderance of scriptural evidence and just do the best we can to believe and obey what God says in His word. Can God expect any more of us? We believe we owe Him no less.
In this study there are just two alternatives:
Before you get started pray that your heart will be opened to the truth of God's word. Then consider the following question: Is giving your life to Jesus Christ essential to salvation? Answering that question honestly and truthfully will make what follows quite simple.
Note that the two alternatives given above are speaking of general case -- that which in all likelihood applies to you and me and everyone that we know. The question is not: “Could God make an exception?” All would agree that God is the ultimate judge, and in His infinite wisdom could make exceptions to what would otherwise seem to be clear biblical teaching. But if we based all of our religious teachings on the fact that God could make exceptions to what we are reading, then we are left with nothing but anarchy.
Does the fact that a few people have survived after their parachutes failed when they jumped out of airplanes mean that everyone can jump out of a plane without a parachute and expect to survive? Making exceptions into rules is not just illogical; it is an insult to God who gave us our brains to be used for His glory.
The question is: “What does the preponderance of biblical evidence teach on the subject?” This, and this alone, should determine what we believe and teach on this or any other bible subject (1 Cor. 4:6: 2 John 9).
First Some Basic Definitions
There are some who are so eager to discount the biblical teachings on baptism that they will attempt to change the normative meaning of the word. In all cases, beginning with the baptism of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:1; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 1:6) through to the allegorical reference to baptism by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21, the normative meaning of the word is baptism in water. Those who wish to refute this will insist that the word always be qualified so that we know what type of baptism it is referring to. This is an unreasonable requirement that they place on the scriptures. If, in fact, every time water baptism was meant, the word water always preceded baptism, this would infer that there was another common baptism being practiced. In fact there was no other type of baptism commanded -- search the scriptures and see if you can find where baptism in the Holy Spirit is commanded. You might make that one of your objectives as we continue, since we will be examining virtually all passages that deal with baptism.
On the other hand, whenever Holy Spirit baptism is meant by the writers, then it is so qualified (e.g., baptized in or with the Holy Spirit). However, the nouns "Holy Spirit" and "water" are never used as adjectives to qualify the word baptism. This terminology has become common today, but clearly the biblical writers did not feel that it was necessary. There was only one baptism practiced by Christians (Eph. 4:4). The question of what a word means in a given context should answer the question: "what did this writer intend to convey by using this word?"
In the lessons on this page the following will become abundantly clear:
We recognize that the word baptism is also used in a figurative sense, taking advantage of it meaning -- an immersion. Let us consider what the Greek scholar James Strong defined the words:
Baptizo
NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:
KJV - Baptist, baptize, wash.
Baptisma
NT:908 baptisma (bap'-tis-mah); from NT:907; immersion, baptism (technically or figuratively):
KJV - baptism.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Thus, when Jesus said in Luke 12:50: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" the meaning is clear. He was to be immersed in misery and pain. The use of the word figuratively in this way illustrates the necessity for immersion in water to be the only mode of baptism that is administered by those commanded of Jesus to practice it (Mt. 28:18). This leads us to our first lesson.
The lessons below attempt to go through the New Testament and explore all that the bible says about baptism in order to resolve the issue defined above. Each of the lessons is quite short, and we recommend that you read and meditate upon them, perhaps one per day over the next few weeks. Perhaps no single lesson will be totally conclusive, but the sum total of evidence that will be presented will be overwhelming.
BAPTISM LESSON 1 – THE GREAT COMMISSION
Whether we should teach and command baptism should be determined by the preponderance of scriptural evidence. We are not at liberty to arbitrarily add to or take away from God's word (2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19).
This is not a matter of opinion. Either God wants us to teach and practice baptism for the remission of sins or He does not. Let us begin with Matt 28:18-20:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Jesus told the apostles that they were to teach all disciples to observe "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." One of the things that Jesus commanded (right here) was that they baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This in turn requires each of us to teach and practice the same things that they did in the first century (that which we can easily read about it the New Testament). "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you" means that we too, like the apostles, are to teach those who would become Christians ALL things -- not just one thing, not just the half of the New Testament we like, but ALL things that Jesus commanded them, and therefore, commanded us.
If baptism is not important then why did Jesus incorporate it right into the Great Commission?
We are not only to be baptized, but we are to baptize, and we are to teach those who we convert to baptize. This is all inherent in the passage quoted above, since what Jesus commanded them was to be taught and thus commanded of all disciples for all time.
I do not consider this to be at all conclusive. Please bear with me and be patient. This is just one of many bits of evidence. Please weigh them all.
Also, in your study seek to find where the bible states that “baptism is just an outward sign of something that has already gone on inside.” You will not find it -- please use a computerized concordance and you will verify this. Ask yourself why people say this over and over and over when it is not taught in any passage of scripture. Baptism is "not just" anything -- it is everything that the New Testament teaches that it is. Clearly Jesus made it a major part of the Great Commission.
As a side note, all Christians are commanded, and thus authorized, to baptize those who have indicated their faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This demonstrates that the person doing the baptizing is not significant. No special ordination or credentials are needed. This is part of all Christians being the holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9) that is the body of Christ on the earth today.
BAPTISM LESSON 2 – MARK’S VERSION OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
Before leaving the great commission, let us consider Mark's version of it: Mark 16:15-16:
And he [Jesus] said unto them, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
In Matthew's version, Jesus commands them to baptize believers; here he states that the salvation of those who are not baptized is questionable.
While I realize that people have gone to great lengths to explain this clear condition of salvation away, I just wonder why? Why not just accept what it says?
Why would Jesus connect baptism to salvation at all if, in fact, he wants us to teach that those who are not baptized are already saved? Or that baptism is just "an outward sign of something that has already gone on inside" -- an extremely common saying that has no basis whatsoever in the New Testament.
There are two counter-arguments lodged at this passage; we will consider them in the following paragraphs.
Argument 1: The last few verses of Mark 16 are not in some Greek manuscripts. This is accurate. But there is no reason to summarily dismiss a passage because it is not in some of the Greek manuscripts. (Are we insisting that for a writing to be considered authentic it must appear in ALL of the ancient manuscripts?) It is easy to see how the end of Mark could have been lost in some of the scrolls. In addition, consider which of the two alternatives is more reasonable: (1) that a scribe would add these verses in, or (2) that it might have gotten omitted due to a copying omission or a damaged scroll. Adding verses such as this is a sin of commission (see Rev. 28:18-19) that no faithful scribe would ever be guilty of, knowing the full consequences of his actions. On the other hand, the omission of some verses is something that could well have taken place accidentally and totally without the intention or knowledge of the scribe. Please read the last chapter of the book of Mark quite carefully. The questionable verses are those after verse 8. In other words, if the questionable passage is omitted, then Mark would have ended his record with the following verse (16:8): “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Who can believe that this is how Luke would end his gospel? Please read the rest of the chapter and see if it is not far more reasonable to conclude that these verses belong in our bibles. Jesus accepted the commonly used translation of his day, and this passage is in our most commonly used translations today. Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Argument 2: Jesus did not say “he who disbelieves and is not baptized shall be condemned.” Some insist that if baptism is essential then Jesus should have put two conditions on being lost. However, logically, had he made this statement one could be baptized (immersed) without believing and still be saved. (Those of you who have studied logic will see this quickly.) To be logically correct, the statement would have to read: “he who disbelieves or is not baptized shall be condemned.” However, this is redundant because those who believe what Jesus teaches will be baptized. How can someone give themselves to Jesus and the flaunt one of his most basic and easiest commands. Belief in this context includes not only baptism but the many other conditions that Jesus laid down for our salvation. Note the following conditions in addition to baptism: hearing (or more accurately, listening) to the gospel message (Jn. 6:44-45); belief of this message (Jn. 3:16); repentance from our past sins (Luke 13:3f); confession of our belief that Jesus is the Son of God (Mt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9); and being faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10). Would not Jesus have to enumerate all of these conditions and not just two of them if he were going to state what a person had to do (or had to not do) in order to be lost. The word “disbelief” covers them all, as we will see in many other passages.
In summary, Mark 16:16 is not essential to complete all that the bible says about baptism, but it does provide and excellent and profoundly sublime summary that it is hard to imagine could have come from the mind of a scribe -- these are the words of Jesus.
BAPTISM LESSON 3 – “WHAT SHALL WE DO?” (ACTS 2)
Just prior to beginning his public ministry Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), and he provides a perfect example for us (1 Pet. 2:21). We have seen that Jesus commanded us to teach all things that the apostles were taught, including not only to be baptized, but to baptize (Mt. 28:18). We also saw where Jesus made baptism a condition of salvation (Mk. 16:16).
The first gospel sermon after Jesus' ascension into heaven is recorded in Acts 2 (it was the first Pentecost after the crucifixion). Peter convinced most of those present that they had been responsible for the crucifixion of the Son of God. We pick up the story in Acts 2:37-38:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Was Peter lying and in sin by giving this response? It is clear that these people now believed all the words of the gospel that Peter has preached to them. They had met the condition of faith. They believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he had been sacrificed for their sins. They believed that he was ascended to heaven and was sitting at the right hand of God. This belief was so strong that it struck fear in their hearts. Here was the perfect opportunity for Peter to say: "you don't have to do anything – you believe, so you are saved." (Some go so far as to teach that if you do anything at the point to obey God that it is an attempt to earn your salvation by works and thus obedience would be sinful. Nothing new in this; read Isa. 5:20).
Let us not be distracted, read what Peter did say. This is in direct response to the question: "what must we do?" Answer: “Repent ye, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins …”
Must we have to do anything different today from what they were required to do? If so this would make God a respecter of persons, and He is not that (see Acts 10:34-35), and as we go through the examples below we will see the total consistency in the application of the requirements of the gospel to all peoples, races and economic classifications, further proving that God has the same requirements for salvation for all of mankind.
Note also that this passage teaches that baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ unto (or for) the remission of sins." "In the name of" means by the authority of – Jesus Christ is the one who gave the command. Remission of sins is the forgiveness of past sins, blotting them out so that they are seen by God no more.
We have heard two counterarguments to this very clear passage.
Argument 1: Baptism is not in water but is in the Holy Spirit. We will deal with this in detail in the very next lesson. We will see that the word baptism when it is unqualified or not otherwise modified by the context refers to water baptism. What did John the Baptist baptize in? What was Jesus baptized in to fulfill all righteousness? The hearers in this context would have no idea what the baptism of the Holy Spirit was, but they understood the commonly practiced baptism of that time. Holy Spirit baptism was never taught as a command; it was taught to be a promise. We will show definitively in the next lesson that this command (as well as that of the Great Commission) had to refer to water baptism. But even with the information we have studied to this point if we were to accept the premise that this is referring to Holy Spirit baptism, then we have several questions that the false teachers of this doctrine are duty-bound to answer:
Argument 2: The word baptism here merely means faith. This must be the case, they reason, since John 3:16 states only one condition of salvation: faith. If Peter meant to teach faith only, why would he use the word baptism? Why not just use the words faith of belief? Such reasoning turns the bible on its ear in order to justify the false teaching of faith only. The only way to harmonize John 3:16 with Acts 2:38 is to realize that believing in Christ will lead a person to repent and be baptized, or for that matter, to want to do all of God’s commands once we are born again and give ourselves to Jesus as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). This is also taught quite clearly in the second chapter of James.
BAPTISM LESSON 4 – CONVERSION OF THE SAMARITANS (ACTS 8:4-25)
The next few lessons will consider the detailed cases of conversion that are documented in the book of Acts. We have already considered the first of these in Acts 2. Some go to great lengths to assert that Acts cannot be used for doctrinal purposes -- a tacit admission that the examples in the book of Acts totally destroy their false doctrines. On the other hand, if historical accounts such as Acts cannot be used for doctrinal purposes, then what about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, which are all historical accounts? Are we to believe that the ten commandments are not valid because they are embedded in an historical account? Most attempts at countering obvious truth become absurd when taken to their logical conclusions.
Each detailed case of conversion illustrates something unique. Acts 2 involved those Jews who were most instrumental in the crucifixion of Christ. The next detailed cases are in Acts 8. These occurred after the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen (recorded in Acts 7).
Acts 8:4-5
"They therefore that were scattered abroad, went about preaching the word. 5 And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ."
The thing unique about this is the extension of the gospel to the Samaritans ... certainly in fulfillment to the command to take the gospel to all peoples (nations). Do a Google search sometime and read about the animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. While they had some religious things in common, for the most part Samaritans were abhorred by most Jews, very much akin to the animosity between Jews and Palestinians today. And so Jesus used the extreme case of the "Good Samaritan" to indicate that we should love and regard all peoples as God's beloved children and hence neighbors. In other words, the taking of the gospel to idolaters in distant lands would seem much more feasible than including the Samaritans. Despite this, note that Samaritans were not considered to be pure Gentiles, since the first Gentiles converted does not occur until Acts 10.
The pattern of their conversion was the same as that on Pentecost (Acts 2) ... Acts 8:12-13:
"But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed."
The implication here is that as soon as they heard the gospel preached they responded to it by being baptized. Reading on in this passage also confirms that the baptism talked about here is water baptism.
Acts 8:14-17: "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."
If they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would have already fallen upon them. Clearly this had not taken place, and later we will see that it only took place in two places: recorded in Acts 2 and in Acts 10. But for now, let us observe just how the Holy Spirit was imparted in its miraculous measure to some Christians in the first century.
Acts 8:18-10: "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
Clearly, it was “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands [that the] Holy Spirit was given” in its miraculous measure. These gifts were imparted to many Christians through the apostles (Acts 2:43). While these spiritual gifts included the ability to perform a variety of miracles (see 1 Cor 14:26; Eph. 4:8-13), the laying on of the apostles hands was never called a baptism in the Holy Spirit.
At this point we just want to confirm our earlier assertion that when the word baptism appears in general in the New Testament, it is referring to water baptism unless the context indicates otherwise. Those who would change this normative meaning of the unqualified word baptism certainly have a motivation that is easy to see through.
BAPTISM LESSON 5 – CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN (ACTS 8:26-40)
After the Samaritans, the next detailed case of conversion is the Ethiopian eunuch, who was in all probability the first black man converted. (Again, this illustrates the gospel being taken to all nations, races, colors, etc. consistently with the Great Commission.) The Ethiopian man had come to Jerusalem to worship, so he was a proselyte Jew, and he was returning home and reading the prophet Isaiah when Philip was led by the Holy Spirit to help him. We pick up the story in Acts 8:35-39:
"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, (here is) water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37(And Philip said, If you believe with all thy heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.) 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing."
From this passage we can see that, again consistently with the Great Commission(see Lesson 1), to "preach Jesus" includes the preaching of baptism. The eunuch had a sense of urgency regarding his baptism, and Philip did nothing to dissuade him from it. What should our response to such a question be today?
Also, can anyone question that the baptism spoken of in verse 36 is water baptism? “Here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?” When we talk about a normative meaning we merely mean that this is the sense in which the word is typically used when not otherwise qualified.
BAPTISM LESSON 6 – CONVERSION OF THE SAUL - 1 (ACTS 9)
Probably the most famous conversion in the bible is that of Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as the Paul. the apostle. While Paul's conversion was prefaced by some miraculous events, he was taught the truth and obeyed it just like all of the other cases of conversion in the New Testament, and just like we should today. This is seen both from Acts 9 and Paul's later description of these events while making his defense in Jerusalem. We will consider these in separate lessons.
Please consider the first recording of the event itself in Acts 9:3-19:
"And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He {said,} "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." 7 And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. 8 And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank. 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, {here am} I, Lord." 11 And the Lord {said} to him, "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight." 13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." 17 And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus."
This rendering does not give all of the details (as we shall see in the next lesson), but it does give the detail of baptism. Note that it was immediate and in direct response to hearing the truth. Why should this not be our pattern today?
God used a punitive miracle -- that of being struck blind -- to get Saul's attention. We learn in other places that Saul felt strongly in his heart that he was serving God when he persecuted (and even indirectly killed) Christians. God had mercy on Saul in this regard, but it was still up to Saul to exert his free will and to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Ananias. Please do not let anyone tell you that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus -- surely you know better from the passage above. In the next lesson we will learn that Paul was still in his sins until he was baptized, which is consistent with the Acts 2 indication that baptism is for the remission (total forgiveness) of one's sins.
BAPTISM LESSON 7 – CONVERSION OF THE SAUL - 2 (ACTS 22)
While we are considering the conversion of Saul in Acts 9, it might be good to jump ahead to Paul's recounting of this event in Acts 22 when he is giving his defense in Jerusalem before a Jewish crowd that had threatened his life. This is how he described he conversion:
Acts 22:6-16
"And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute. 9 And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, 13 came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on his name."
The following can be concluded from the above passage:
BAPTISM LESSON 8 – FIRST GENTILES CONVERTED (ACTS 10-11)
After the conversion of Saul, the next detailed cases of conversions are the first gentiles who were led to Christ. We have seen that each case of conversion illustrates something new and different, and yet, they all show uniformity in the conditions and method of conversion. Someone taught the prospect the truth, and that person responded with faith in that teaching. They heard the gospel, believed what they heard, repented of their past sins, were willing to confess their faith in Christ, and were baptized for the remission of their sins. While all details are not given in all cases, there is no reason to believe that any of the cases of conversion lacked these any of these elements.
Acts 10 details how Peter received a special revelation from God that led him to the Gentile Cornelius and his household. The following is his teaching to these gentiles and the events that followed:
Acts 10:34-48:
"And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to him.
36 The word that he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) 37 that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 (even) Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. 40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, 41 not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, (even) to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God (to be) the Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believes on him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The comment of Peter about “God not being a respecter of persons” is quite relevant to understanding this passage. Also, the entire passage needs to be read from 10:1 through 11:18. All Christians to this point were Jews, including the Samaritans, who were nominally of Jewish background. There was tremendous pressure by some within the church to prevent Gentiles from being baptized unless they were first circumcised. This problem seems not to have been solved in the first century, and you can read about it in much detail in the book of Galatians (see especially Gal. 5). It also motivated the conference that was held in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit revealed clearly that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised to receive baptism. Peter brought several Jewish brethren with him to the conversion of Cornelius and his household (and friends) so that they could witness God's acceptance of the Gentiles without their keeping any provisions of the Old Testament law (things that Paul often alludes to as "works").
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is only the second such event recorded in the book of Acts (and hence the New Testament in general), and it was a spectacular event. Note verse 45 above that we have put in bold. This miraculous baptism in the Holy Spirit seems more for the benefit of the Jews who came with Peter than for the benefit of the new Gentile converts.
Two things are quite clear regarding our subject:
Peter continues to explain the events in Acts 11:15-18:
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. 17 If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? 18 And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
Points to ponder:
BAPTISM LESSON 9 – CONVERSION OF LYDIA (ACTS 16:13-15)
Acts 12 considers the death of James the brother of John. Acts 13 and 14 are the events of Paul's first missionary journey, and Acts 15 (as we mentioned earlier) records the conference that dealt with the issue of circumcision. The next detailed cases of conversion are in Act 16. There are two of them and we will discuss them in separate lessons.
After the conference at Jerusalem, Paul went with Silas on his second missionary journey, and eventually came to Philippi. The conversion of Lydia and her household is described at that point ...
Acts 16:13-15:
“And on the Sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide (there). And she constrained us.”
Baptism in this situation seems to be assumed by Luke. It does not state that she was baptized to establish that as a practice, but says "and when she was baptized" indicating that the reader should expect that this would be done immediately. At this point the baptism of believers was a very well established fact so we would expect a "matter of fact" type of expression regarding it.
Baptism only? The very last thing that we would ever teach is that one is saved by baptism ONLY. We are not saved by anything ONLY. When you put the word ONLY behind something it eliminates the rest of what the bible teaches regarding God’s plan of salvation and the Christian way of life. In fact, it even changes the meaning of the noun being modified. Baptism only is much different from baptism. Repentance only is much different from repentance. And, of course, faith only is dramatically different from living faith (James 2), The bible NEVER states that we are saved by anything ONLY. Please run a concordant search and verify that this is true.
But it is no surprise that the critics of the truth would make such an accusation. When we say that baptism is essential to salvation this is quite different from saying "baptism saves." While it seems clear from Romans 6:3 that we are baptized into Christ, the expression "baptism saves" it an accomodative one -- it is not to be taken literally. Getting wet does not save us -- we will elaborate upon this more in Lesson 17. For now recognize that baptism is not just getting wet else we could save many by just pushing them off of a pier. Both God and the individual being baptized contribute heavily to the process.
So, what is it about baptism that does save? It is only because baptism is commanded -- so it is the willingness within the heart of the individual that enables him or her to accept the free gift of God given by His grace.
Heb 5:8-9: “… though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; …”
Is Jesus your author of eternal salvation? ... or put another way, are you concerned with being obedient to him? Can we ignore his plain commands and still claim that he authored our salvation? What did he author if not His will for us today? Baptism is one of those commands.
BAPTISM LESSON 10 – CONVERSION OF PHILLIPIAN JAILER (ACTS 16:28-34)
There is a second detailed case of conversion in Acts 16. It occurs after Paul exorcises a spirit of divination from a young girl, thus denying her masters of the money they were making from her. They stir up a mob and Paul and Silas end up in stocks in prison, albeit still singing and praising the LORD. This is significant in that the jailer and the other prisoners had some knowledge of Paul and Silas' religious beliefs. After an earthquake and other miraculous events free all of the prisoners, the jailer is about to kill himself, since the fate of a Roman guard who loses his prisoners is not pretty to contemplate. We pick up the story at that point ...
Acts 16:28-34:
“But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. 32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. 34 And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God."
Verse 33 indicates that there was no delay in finalizing the jailer's conversion with the act of baptism.
The combination of verses 31-33 indicates that teaching ("spoke the word" – vs. 32) was involved in knowing just what "believe on the Lord Jesus" meant. It is clear that this teaching included repentance and baptism.
Why do so many preachers today stop at verse 31? Do they have something to hide?
BAPTISM LESSON 11 – APOLOS (ACTS 18)
We will divide this next incident down into two articles to keep things short. The events concerning Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, at the end of Acts 18, set up what immediately follows in Acts 19.
A little background. After Paul left Philippi (Acts 16), he went to Thessalonica, Beroea, and then to Athens (Acts 17). After this, he went on to Corinth (Acts 18). There he met fellow Jews Priscilla and Aquila who were of the same trade as Paul (tentmakers). He spent 18 months there (Acts 18:11), during which time Priscilla and Aquila were converted and became grounded in the truth.
Paul then left for Syria taking with him Priscilla and Aquila. They came to Ephesus (Acts 18:19), and after a short time, Paul went on to Caesarea, but he left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. The event that follows occurred at Ephesus during the time after Paul had left them at Ephesus.
Acts 18:24-26:
"Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: 26 and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately."
Points to ponder:
We will take this subject up in more detail in the next lesson when we get into Acts 19.
BAPTISM LESSON 12 – THE EPHESIANS (ACTS 19)
The follow-up event to that which we discussed in the last lesson is given in the next chapter.
Acts 19:1-7:
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they (said) unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was (given). 3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. 4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And they were in all about twelve men."
Points to ponder:
The question that Paul asked can have a variety of meanings and therefore might be misleading. "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" I suspect that Paul was referring to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. since at the end of this story this is exactly what he imparts to them. Calling the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit Himself is a common New Testament use of metonymy that is probably not even recognized by most readers because it is very common in our own language. But for the purpose of completeness and to whet our appetites for continued study in this area, notice the following similar statements relative to the Holy Spirit and their meanings:
Again, the study of the role and work of the Holy Spirit is not the focus of this study. We bring it up here only to provide some perspective on the words of Paul with regard to the Holy Spirit.
To review, the proposition that these lessons on baptism is supporting is that the New Testament teaches that baptism was commanded of converts in the first century, and that those who were not baptized were not obedient to Jesus and thus they were not considered to be members of the body of Christ. Let us now spend some time on determining how individuals get into Christ.
BAPTISM LESSON 13 – “BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST” - 1 (ROMANS 6)
Paul spends much of the first five chapters of Romans demonstrating the fact that we are not saved by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. He was concerned that this might lead some Christians to believe that being righteous and obedient to God’s commands was unnecessary to the Christian life. This is an appalling conclusion that many today have come to. To dispel this idea, he attacks it head-on in Chapter 6.
Rom 6:1-13:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts."
Of particular interest to the subject is the third verse above:
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
This verse necessarily implies that the Roman Christians understood that our obedience to the command of baptism puts us into Christ. Please study the context of this verse and see if it does not also demonstrate the following:
Let us reiterate the relationship between the Romans 6:4 “walk in newness of life” and the condition of salvation given in John 3:3: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” and John 3:5: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!” Clearly this is a condition of salvation. How is it satisfied?
The death is described in Romans 6 as a crucifixion of the old man. Are we not spiritually dead as long as we are outside of Christ? Is it not reasonable that being born of the water and the Spirit is not satisfied in by the crucifixion of the old man and entering into the body of Christ via baptism? If this condition is not satisfied in this way, then how is it satisfied? Any other way invents a new way to get into Jesus, and thus it cannot be validate by scripture.
Some will argue that the water in John 3:5 is the water involved in the natural birth. This would then make Jesus statement equivalent to the following: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born naturally [of his mother] and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!” But this is rather a nonsense statement, is it not? Of course one has to be born to even be a human being. Why would Jesus make such a statement? It is far more reasonable to view Romans 6 as a commentary to John 3:1-5.
And then there are those who will argue that the baptism of Romans 6:3 is Holy Spirit baptism. We hope you are beyond that at this point, but just in case you might have some doubts, this will be covered once again in Lesson 16. Feel free to jump ahead.
BAPTISM LESSON 14 – “BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST” - 2 (1 COR. 12:12-13)
We saw the term "baptized into Christ Jesus" used in Romans 6:3: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”
If baptism is the act that puts us into Christ, then it certainly cannot just be disregarded as unimportant. The concept of being baptized into Christ is not at all unique to the book of Romans. Consider the following ...
1 Cor 12:12-13: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit."
and also …
Gal 3:26-29: “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one (man) in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
It seems quite clear that the first century Christians were taught by the apostles that their baptism put them into the body of Christ, or, as Paul often put it, into Christ Himself.
The counter argument is often made that this is talking about Holy Spirit baptism. However, that is not what we observed in the examples. When were people considered to be members of the Lord’s church in the first century? Answer: when they were baptized in water for the remission of their sins. Their sins were washed away and they were born again into the body of Christ.
To ignore these passages by the ruse of calling it Holy Spirit baptism creates far more problems for the false teachers than it solves. Do you have Holy Spirit baptism services? Is this scriptural? What do such events consist of? Do miracles occur as they did in all cases of biblical Holy Spirit baptisms? Please do not let the false teachers make it up as they go along. The burden of proof is on them to show that Paul was not using the normative meaning of the word baptism in these passages. See Lesson 16.
BAPTISM LESSON 15 – REVISIT OF MARK 16:16
Now that we have gotten a broader understanding of the role of baptism, it is good to go back and revisit the clear statement of Jesus in Mark 16:16.
The statement "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" is a very clear statement that should be able to stand on its own. If this is all that we had it would be sufficient. However, all of the examples that validate this statement gives us confidence that the simple normative meaning of this statement is, in fact, what it means. This also further validated by the concept of being "baptized into Christ," for salvation is only in Christ (Jn. 14:6).
Consider the statement "They that obtain a marriage license and take their marriage vows are legally married." If this statement is valid, could it be reasoned in any way that one can just get a license and be legally married? Or could one just take the vows and skip the license and still be legally married. If it further stated that -- "if they do not get a license they will not be legally married" -- would this change the first statement? Does this automatically mean that they do not need to take their vows? Of course not, it does not nullify the first statement. (Remember, the first statement is totally true and valid!)
We might ask: How could Jesus have re-made this statement to satisfy the critics?
Let us consider some alternatives:
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned.
This places two conditions on being condemned, and it logically contradicts the first clause. The second statement: "he that disbelieves and is not baptized shall be condemned" places two conditions on condemnation -- disbelief AND a failure to be baptized. So, someone could be baptized and not believe and they would not be condemned. Jesus would never make such an illogical statement. We trust you were not looking for this alternative.
Logically, to make a consistent statement, it would need to appear as follows:
16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves OR is not baptized shall be condemned.
Question: if this statement appeared in the New Testament, would that be sufficient? My feeling is that most people would see this as being more confusing than Jesus' more elegant and simpler statement.
Why is it unnecessary for non-baptism to be spelled out? Simply because, if someone does not believe they will not be baptized, so disbelief includes non-baptism. Can you imagine the case in which a non-believer gets baptized anyway? Now, can you imagine the case in which someone totally trusts in Jesus, but determines that they are not going to be obedient to him in baptism. I think it is only right to ask -- if they are not going to trust Jesus in this regard, then what command are they going to obey?
Please also compare this with Matthew's record of the same statement (the great commission; Matt. 28:18-20): “And Jesus came to them and spoke unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
Jesus commanded them and us to teach all things that he commanded them. Very clearly he commanded them to be baptized. To state that someone can be saved in disobedience to this command is as valid as stating that someone can be saved in disobedience to any command that God has given, including the command to believe.
BAPTISM LESSON 16 – IS OUR BAPTISM IN WATER OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?
Just prior to beginning his public ministry Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3:15): “But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he allowed Him.” Realize that Jesus provides a perfect example for us (1 Pet. 2:21) “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps…” There is no scholar or other ecclesiastic authority who ever questioned that John the Baptist baptized in water, so clearly Jesus was baptized in water. Do those who seek to come up with an alternative really believe that some mystical invisible thing will be following Jesus. How can they avoid the fact that water is stated over and over again in scripture (e.g., Acts 11:16; John 3:23 “And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” If Jesus was baptized in water to fulfill all righteousness, whose righteousnss are we fulfilling when we come up with some undefined alternative?
In one sense Jesus' baptism of John was not identical to ours because he subjected himself to the Father through John the Baptist, who was the one sent of God at that time. Today we subject ourselves to God through the Son (Hebrews 1). Our baptism is in the name (by the authority of) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:18-19). However, exactly like Jesus, we are doing the will of God when we submit ourselves to this command.
If still in doubt about what baptism is commanded of us today, consider just a few obvious examples that occurred after the church was established, as recorded in Acts 2.
Finally, note the case in which some WERE baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48): “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Surely no one can argue that the baptism that Peter commanded was in the Holy Spirit since these people had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Yet, they were still subject to the command to be baptized in water by the authority of Jesus Christ (see Mt. 28:18-19).
Is should be clear to all except those who are trying to evade God’s commands that when the term “baptize in the name of Jesus Christ” is used in the New Testament without any other qualification that it is talking about water baptism.
Search the scriptures and confirm: water baptism was commanded. Holy Spirit baptism was promised to some (not to all, although its benefits accrue to all Christians of all times). Holy Spirit baptism was NEVER commanded.
BAPTISM LESSON 17 – 1 PETER 3:18-21
Please read 1 Peter 3:18-21 carefully: “Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ …”
What happened in the time of Noah? The earth was literally baptized (immersed, for that is what the Greek word baptiso means -- review the Introduction above). The earth was totally immersed in water. It was full of sinful people when it went down into the water. When it emerged from the water it was totally without these sinful people. The eight souls were saved (separated from the sinful worldly) through water. Clearly water baptism is under consideration.
Note the subject and the verb in the clause ...
"... water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you ..."
Subject: water
Verb: saves (doth now save)
We realize that the “water only” does not save -- no one is trying to teach that the water only saves. This is imagery. What saves is our yielding ourselves to God’s will. The ark did not save. God saved Noah by means of the ark. But Noah had to build the ark. Noah’s building the ark did not save him. It was his obedience to God’s will that saved him. We should try to do all that we can to be in compliance with God’s will. Our actions will not save us; but God will save us in His way (Rom. 1:16-17) when "the righteous shall live by faith."
Again, note:
" ... water: 21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, ..."
It is not water that saves, but this verse does say (if taken literally) that baptism saves. We believe Peter is speaking accomodatively in stating that baptism saves, because we know that just getting wet or taking a bath does not save. But that is not enough to just write something off. We also must determine the point that Peter was trying make with this figurative statement. What is it that saves? Peter answers the question ...
" ... not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God ..."
It is the obedience to Christ that enables us to access his precious saving blood. We cannot access it in ignorance and unbelief. We cannot access it in rebellion. We cannot access it with the idea of doing the minimum requirement -- giving our lives to Christ is not going to be accomplished by working to figure out what His minimal requirements are.
God has given us a simple means of hearing his word, repenting of our sins, being willing to confess our belief to all (that Jesus is the son of God), and being baptized into his body, followed by a life dedicated to the blessings that come from serving our Lord. It is a very simple and easy plan to follow. Getting wet does not save us, but yielding obedience out of a good conscience toward God qualifies us to be forgiven of our sins so that God will save us according to His promises. What this is saying is that our obedience to the command of Jesus Christ to be baptized (in and into his name) is "the answer of a good conscience toward God."
Don't just believe me -- accept the unbiased scholarly conclusions of the virtually all of the translation teams:
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NKJV):
" ... who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us — baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV):
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NASB):
",,, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NRSV):
20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:20-21 (RSV):
" ... who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NIV):
In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
It is certainly not wrong to say that "baptism saves" -- the bible does. This is not an unqualified statement, however. It is not some magic ritual, some holy water, or something that has to be administered by some ordained clergyman. It is simple obedience to Jesus Christ that comes from having a living faith (James 2).
No one denies that obedience to Christ is required for salvation. Our argument is only in what he has commanded. Some say he has commanded faith only. I think we have shown that faith only is an oxymoron. I think we all agree that baptism is a command to all disciples, and only after they obeyed this command were they recognized as part of the body of Christ.
If we do anything different from this, then we give people the impression that they are saved when they are not. There is no greater injustice and harm that one man can do to another than this. Even murder is not as grave a sin against our fellow man. Why is this taken so lightly?
BAPTISM LESSON 18 – OBJECTIONS FROM TITUS 3:4-7
Some object that passages such as Titus 3:4-7 teach salvation apart from baptism. Let us consider this in depth, since it appears from the evidence presented above that the vast preponderance of scriptural evidence supports our obedience to God’s clear command that we be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the purpose of remission of our sins and to add us to the body of Christ. Is there a contradiction?
Read Titus 3:4-7 carefully: “But when the kindness of God our Savior, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works (done) in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The objection that we have heard is that being baptized is a work (which we do ourselves), and since we are not saved by such works, then baptism can have nothing to do with salvation. Since this is not a biblical doctrine, it has a lot of variations. It can range from those who still practice some form of baptism (for a wide variety of non-scriptural reasons), to those who might feel that if it is a work then it must be evil (sinful). I am not at all sure just what the reader’s position on it is. However, if you look at the context of Titus 3, you will see clearly that this passage has nothing at all to do with baptism. Baptism is not the subject that Paul is trying to address at this point.
If we want to see how the apostles practiced baptism we can simply consider the examples in the book of Acts. Let us assume that the premise that baptism is a work and that since we are not saved by works, commanding a new convert to be baptized is both misleading and wrong. Let us consider the examples ...
Acts 2:37-38 Now when they heard (this,) they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? 38 And Peter (said) unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If the premise give in italics above is true, then obviously Peter did not know it. It is obvious that they believed, so his answer should have been NOTHING -- you are already saved, so just go back to the synagogue of your choice and all will be well. Practice whatever baptism (or none for that matter) that they instruct you to. Peter even states that there is a relation between baptism and remission of sins. Was Peter trying to confuse them? If baptism is a work of man, it can have nothing to do with the remission of sins. But baptism is not a work of man; it is a working of God (Colossians 2:12 “…having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God , who raised him from the dead.”) Clearly Titus 3 is condemning a man-created plan of salvation -- something other than what God has given to us.
Remember again, the premise that we are evaluating is this: baptism is a work; since we are not saved by works, commanding a new convert to be baptized is both misleading and wrong (sinful).
Consider Acts 22:12-16 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.”
Was Ananias mistaken in what he commanded Paul? Is he saying that baptism washes away sins? This would be quite misleading if in reality is a work of man's creation.
I will not belabor things, but passages such as Acts 8:12, 8:36-38; 10:48; 16:15; 16:33; and 19:5 also provide evidence that the Holy Spirit did not view baptism as something to be avoided because it was a work of man.
So, how does this great weight of scriptural evidence harmonize with Titus 3:4-7:
“But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works (done) in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
I suppose if someone had the attitude that they invented baptism, or that their baptism was such a great work on their part that it justified their salvation, or earned it by being baptized, then this passage would definitely apply to baptism. We are not saved by any act of our own – the blood of Christ is what saves us, and that only because he lived a perfect life and gave up that life on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. NOTHING that we can do (not even the deepest of faith on our part) can erase our sins – only the blood of Christ can do that. This is what we should teach, and this is exactly what Titus 3 is teaching here.
Baptism does not earn pir salvation, but we all agree that it is a command of Christ. Disobedience to the commands of Christ can disqualify a person, making it impossible for the blood of Jesus to accomplish its purpose. We cannot be saved when in ignorance or rebellion. We need to hear the truth, and when we hear it we need to accept the beautiful life that is offered to us by it. How can anyone say that we earn anything when what we are given (even on this earth by the Christian life) is superior in happiness to any other life that man can conceive of. Indeed, salvation is a matter of faith -- believing that God has our best interests in mind in giving us the commands and life of the gospel.
There is no contradiction to Titus 3 and the concept that Christ has commanded us to be baptized. Both are totally, 100% true.
BAPTISM LESSON 19 – WHY THE HANGUP WITH BAPTISM?
Let us review again the major premise that is put forth by Jesus himself -- that we need to do God's will in order to access the blood of Christ. This is the major premise ...
Matt 7:21-23 “Not everyone that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Major premise: He that does the will of God will be saved – not by perfect law keeping or by meritorious works, but by FAITH that God will keep His word and that His word is the truth.
Minor premise: Baptism is a command of God, and thus part of the will of God.
The obvious conclusion follows: If we do not obey the command to be baptized for the remission of our sins, we are not “doing the will of God.”
Now for our article subject question: why get hung up on baptism?
There are some things that we are commanded to do in order to be acceptable to God that are much more difficult than just subjecting ourselves to baptism. Among them -- repentance (Luke 13:3), that is, turning from our old sinful life, called in Romans 6 a "crucifixion of the flesh" to highlight just how difficult it is, especially if we depend on our own strength to do it. Of course, we will get help from the Lord.
Also what about being a confession of Christ (Matt. 10:32-33); that is, being willing to confess our faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and walking the walk -- all of that is part of our confession. In fact, if we SAY we have faith in Christ and then turn back to demonstrate a sinful life to the world, we do far more harm to the cause of Christ than we do good. It would have been better never to have confessed with our mouth.
And, what does it mean to be faithful unto death? Rev 2:10: “Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death , and I will give thee the crown of life.”
Are we supposed to belittle this condition of salvation by calling it a work? Surely it is a much greater work than just subjecting ourselves to be baptized (an act itself in which we do nothing). If we are so eager to teach that the simple act of baptism can be dispensed with because it is “a work,” then what is it that we are supposed to be doing in living a faithful life?
Think about it -- why pick on baptism? Of all of the commands that we have, baptism is probably the easiest. It is not even something that we do, it is something that is done to us, so it can hardly be considered a working of our own hands, or something that could possibly merit our salvation.
All we are arguing for is what Jesus commanded when he said to "teach them whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:18-19). Jesus never said to teach that baptism is not necessary – that we are saved by faith only, or for that matter, anything only. No command of God should ever be relegated to a secondary position ... it's just wrong.
Again our warning – teaching others that God’s commands are optional or unnecessary is the greatest possible disservice that you can do to them. Please do not destroy them and yourself in the process.
BAPTISM LESSON 20 – COLOSSIANS 2:8-12
Please read Col 2:8-12 carefully: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
This passage is totally consistent with all of the other scriptural evidence on baptism.
What was circumcision under the old law? Was any proselyte (convert to Judaism) considered to be a Jew who was not circumcised? Was circumcision a command of the Old Testament law? Of course.
I think we all understand that we are no longer under that law, and so circumcision is not commanded of us today (Acts 15). But we also understand the role that it played from the time that the Mosaic law become effective until it was per-empted by Christ’s blood shed on the cross. But clearly, within the Jewish nation, which was "God's chosen people" at that time, and symbolic (a shadow) of His church today, males needed to be circumcised in order to considered as part of that nation.
In verse 11, what is "the circumcision of Christ?" Clearly it is not talking about circumcision under the OT law. It is being used metaphorically of something else. The answer is in verse 12 “... circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism ...”
The only argument that we can imagine is that this is not talking about water baptism. If that is the case then we need to come up with the scriptural basis for whatever alternative baptism it is talking about. To just assert, as some do, that this is some spiritualization of baptism, or that it is Holy Spirit baptism, is without scriptural basis.
Please run a concordant reference on all variations of Holy Spirit Baptism and you will see that it only occurred twice in the New Testament -- Acts 2 and Acts 10 (explained in our Acts 11 lesson). Holy Spirit baptism was never commanded, nor was it even expected of them who were baptized of the Holy Spirit when it did occur. And, in every case that it did occur, it was evidenced by the miraculous.
If, in fact, this and all other passages that teach that we are baptized into Christ are referring to Holy Spirit baptism, why do those who teach this practice water baptism at all? Water baptism would be totally unnecessary, so why is it practiced in some form in virtually all churches. The reason for their doing it is inexplicable -- that is their problem. But for us the question should be: Why was it commanded throughout the book of Acts? The answer to this is obvious -- because it is the will of God.
The Holy Spirit is indeed present in our baptism, but the normative meaning of the word baptism in the bible is immersion in water, beginning with the baptism of John on forward. Any alternative meaning of the word is obvious as such from the context. Thus, when some event occurs that is a baptism in the Holy Spirit, this is spelled out to us. This can clearly be seen by just getting a concordance and looking at all passages that use the term baptize, baptized, or baptism.
BAPTISM LESSON 21 – REVISIT OF ACTS 10 AND 11
Now that we have more background, let us reconsider the second case of Holy Spirit baptism – that which is recorded in Acts 10 and 11.
Read carefully the context, concentrating on the following:
Acts 10:44-48 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
Acts 11:12-18 “And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house: and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”
We urge everyone who is interested in learning the truth that is being taught from these passages to please read the entire two chapters of Acts 10 and 11 (through Acts 11:18, and perhaps a bit beyond) to get the entire context.
First note that these were the very FIRST gentiles who were converted; the very first ones who were baptized without first receiving circumcision. The timing is about 10 years after the day of Pentecost, so a lot of Jews (including Samaritans) had been converted by this time, and the gospel had been taken to quite a bit of the world by those who were converted due to the scattering that took place after the death of Stephen (see the first few verses of Acts 8).
There was obviously great resistance by many Jewish Christians to the baptism of Gentiles without their first being circumcised. If you do not understand this, then please read on through Acts 15 to see that this was a very serious problem in the early church. It also becomes quite clear in the first few verses of Acts 11.
Peter was led by the Spirit to take some prominent Jewish Christians with him to the conversion of Cornelius, his friend and his household, so that they could witness the fact directly from the Holy Spirit that the gentiles were acceptable to become Christians without being circumcised first.
Please think about it – circumcision before baptism would be a TREMENDOUS deterrent to the conversion of the gentiles. It involved pain, humiliation and tremendous cultural deterrents. Go over to Israel today and try to convince a Moslem Palestinian to be circumcised. Chances are you will not survive. In the first century there were tremendous cultural and racial barriers; Peter put it this way in Acts 10:28 "Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and (yet) unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean ..."
After this Peter preached the same gospel to them that had been preached on the day of Pentecost as far as their requirements were concerned. As he was preaching ...
Acts 10:44-48: “While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
This is the first time that anything like this happened to anyone except the apostles. Read the first ten chapters of the book of Acts to confirm this. Since the scriptures were not completed, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit had been given to some believers, but that had been accomplished by the laying on of the apostles hands. Read Acts 8:18 to verify that "it was by the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given."
As we see in Chapter 11, this was a second occurrence of the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was manifested by unquestioned miracles. Surely, if the Jews with Peter COULD have argued that this was not a miracle, they would have. But their conclusion was: "on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Note Peter's question in verse 47: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"
Why would anyone forbid the water? If baptism was not at all important, and had nothing to do with salvation, why would Peter even bring up the subject? Did Peter and the Jewish Christians with him regard baptism in water to be significant? Should we not have the same regard for it as they did?
Verse 48 -- Peter commanded them to be baptized. If this were not a command of Christ then Peter was in sin for commanding such a thing. Should we command the same today? See Mt. 28:18.
The argument is made that since they received the gift of the Holy Spirit that they must have already been saved. The only reason that such an argument is made is to somehow conclude that baptism was not necessary for salvation. It really does not matter at what point God considered them to be saved (He and HE alone is the only one who really knows). But I think one thing is sure – had any of these individuals refused to be baptized according to Peter's command, they would not be considered to be Christians. Further, can anyone argue that they would be saved in such rebellion?
A comparable argument could be made regarding the Lord's Supper. Does the Lord's Supper save? Well, yes and no. Obviously it is not a meritorious work that earns us our salvation, nor is it some mystical magical thing that suddenly makes us right with God. Well, then, why do we do it? We do it because we want to do the will of Christ, and HE commanded it. If I decide that I am never going to obey this command to partake of the Lord's Supper again, will that condemn me? I would hate to stand before God with that attitude.
Now let's go on to Acts 11:1-4 “Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them. But Peter began, and expounded (the matter) unto them ...”
After which he told them the entire story ... we will pick it up toward the end. At this point it is important to note the animosity (contention) with which they were greeted by "they that were of the circumcision." That is how Luke describes Judaizing Christians – those who contended that Christianity was just a sect of Judaism, and that all Christians were under the law. Quite a bit of the instructions that Paul gives in his epistles are explained by this contentious attitude (see Acts 15).
Lets pick it up toward the end of the explanation ...
Acts 11:15-18: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”
Let's consider this one verse at a time:
Is repentance a condition of salvation? Does repentance save?
Both baptism and repentance are commands of God and conditions of salvation (see Luke 13:3). Ignoring either one can keep us from being saved; however, I would not say that "baptism only saves" anymore than I would say "repentance only saves." Both are only a part of the story. Faith in Jesus Christ requires that we practice and tell the whole gospel story (Rom. 1:16-17; Acts 10:26-27).
BAPTISM LESSON 22 – REVISIT OF ROMANS 6
While we considered Romans 6 above, with the additional background that we have now, it will be good to see if we can get more of the meat out of this passage.
Please read Rom. 6:1-7 carefully: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also bein the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.”
The word baptism in the New Testament literally means immersion, and typically that was in water (not in any religious sense). So, if a person was pushed into and under the water, it could be said that they were immersed. The Greek word was never translated. If it were translated, it would read "immersed" in our bibles. Perhaps that would have acquired some religious connotation (as the word "church" has). It is somewhat unfortunate that the translators for the most part transliterated the word, thus making it into some strictly religious word, and in the process, it lost its original meaning to most readers.
The normative meaning of the word baptism is immersion in water. This can be seen from Peters usage of it in Acts 10:47: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"
He did not say "water baptized" or "baptized in water" because everyone knew exactly what he meant when he said the word baptism. Please get a concordance and go through the entire new testament and you will see that it is used in other senses than immersion in water with only a very few exceptions. We all recognize that getting wet alone is of no value, and that something else must have preceded baptism, and that baptism must be in obedience to the command of Jesus, and thus for the specific purpose that he ordained it to have.
With this in mind, let us consider the meaning of Romans 6:1-7:
Please read the rest of the chapter, and note in particular the following:
Rom 6:17-18 “But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”
What was it that enabled them to become servants of righteousness?
Answer: "... ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered ..."
What is that form of teaching? What is taught that we must do in order to be saved -- hear the word, believe it, repent of our sins, confess our faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and be baptized into Christ. That is the form of teaching that was delivered unto them. Read Matt. 28:18 again -- that is the teaching that they were to deliver to all new disciples.
Of course, it does not stop there – there is still the Christian life, and this is also heavily referenced in the 6th chapter of Romans.
BAPTISM LESSON 23 – REVISIT OF ACTS 2:37
Consider first A.T. Robertson’s objection to the Acts 2:37 teaching that baptism is for the purpose of remission of sins.
“Repent ye (metanoêsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthêtô hekastos hûmôn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place… 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.” (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592).
Our Response
We suppose that if one holds the Calvinist belief that salvation cannot be lost, then the exact point at which a person is saved becomes a very important consideration. It is hard to believe that someone would have a change of heart and mind to the point that they would be saved, and then refuse to obey this simplest of the commands of the Lord. If this could happen, then would not that person be in rebellion and thus be lost? See Acts 8 for an example of someone (Simon the Sorcerer) who was saved and very shortly thereafter was in rebellion to God.
Impossible? Consider Acts 8:13-24: And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed. Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me."
This passage teaches that Simon was saved regardless if you believe in salvation before or after baptism. Verse 13 says he believed. Those who teach faith only cannot deny that he was saved. If not then can anyone have any assurance at all that they or anyone else saved? Note that when he is confronted by Peter with his sin, two major points are made:
(1) His sin has now made him lost “thy heart is not right with God … thou are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” What stronger or more definitive words were ever spoken?
(2) The remedy: repent and pray for forgiveness. Peter does not challenge his belief or his baptism. He was saved, now he is lost, and this is the remedy for that situation (see also 1 John 1 and 2).
The point that we are trying to make is that the command to be baptized is one that, if not followed, will lead one to be lost. It does not matter at what point God recognizes that a person is saved. A disregard for God’s command and the teaching of others to disregard it has the same consequences.
But lets look at it in more detail to see that the evidence is not that Peter was “urging baptism on them,” but that he was commanding it, because he was commanded to command it (Mt. 28:18). Consider the various versions to see what various teams of scholarly translators felt that this verse means in English.
Acts 2:38
And Peter (said) unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
ASV
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
KJV
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASB
38 Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASU
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NRSV
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
RSV
Peter replied, "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.
NIV
And Peter answered them, Repent (change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
AMP
38 And Peter replied, "Each one of you must turn from sin, return to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit.
TLB
38 Peter replied, "Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NLT
Why can't we just accept what it says? Amazing the excuses we can come up with when we want a way out.
BAPTISM LESSON 24 – OBJECTION BASED ON 1 COR. 1:17
The objection is often made that Paul’s words to the Corinthians: (1Cor.1:17) "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" indicate that baptism is of little consequence to salvation.
First of all, let's look at this from a very high level. Are those who teach this stating that we SHOULD NOT baptize? Is that their position? Is it wrong to baptize?
If so, why does your church baptize?
You cannot have it both ways. If baptism has nothing to do with salvation, and if it is wrong to teach new disciples that they should be baptized according to the examples that we have in the book of Acts, then what ARE they baptizing people for? Can they provide a scriptural basis for their practice? Some teach that they are being baptized into the local church -- WHERE can that be found in scripture?
Now let's deal with the passage itself ...1 Cor 1:10-18. Please read carefully ...
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and (that) there be no divisions among you; but (that) ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them (that are of the household) of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. 18 For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
It is clear that those who teach against baptism using this passage take verse 14 out of context in order to make the point that baptism is not involved in our salvation. Question: is this the message that PAUL was trying to convey? In doing so they are either ignorant or being blatantly dishonest -- and yet we hear this objection all the time.
If you read the entire context you will see that this is not at all what Paul was saying. Absolutely not. Were ANY of the Corinthian Christians not baptized? I think you agree from the context and from 1 Cor. 12:13 that they were ALL baptized. The subject here is not whether or not they should be baptized, but WHO did the baptizing. (Also see Acts 18 for the history of Paul’s stay at Corinth.)
The bible does not place any emphasis at all on WHO is to do the baptizing. The great commission (Mt. 28:18) places the responsibility to baptize on the same people who do the preaching or teaching. No one has to be "ordained" by a religious organization or anything like that to baptize someone.
So, let's walk through it:
Let me illustrate with another example from the book of 1 Corinthians.
1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient.”
Are all things lawful? This is a common figure of speech called hyperbole. Paul is over-emphasizing to an obvious extreme in order to make a point. The key to understanding hyperbole is that is must be totally absurd when taken literally, so the hearer (reader) quickly discards the literal meaning in favor of the major point being made by the writer.
We use hyperbole all the time. Read the previous sentence again and you will see that hyperbole was used there; but you understood it perfectly. Obviously we don't do anything "all the time" (note the absurdity of taking this literally). We just say that we do it “all the time” to make the point that it is done very often and without even thinking.
The bible is not difficult to understand, but we have to apply the same rules to it that we apply to understanding any work of literature, or for that matter, our everyday conversation. Please correct those who would use 1 Cor. 1:17 as an attempt to prove that baptism is not a command of Jesus Christ -- we will give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have not sufficiently studied the context, and that they are just accepting this as a common criticism of bible baptism.
Lesson 10. Thinking About Becoming a Christian?
A Survey of New Testament Teaching on the Subject of Water Baptism
Preliminary note: The article below contains an Introduction followed by 24 lessons. While this might indicate it to be a complex subject, it really is not. The articles on the Plan of Salvation or just the very first topic, are sufficient to present the bible truth with regard to baptism. It is not that this is a difficult subject; it is that men have had reasons to try to avoid these simple biblical teachings, and thus they have not taught the full truth on the subject, while adding many concepts that are not in the New Testament. Read through these lessons and we know you will come to the same conclusion as we have: there is no subject for which more definitive teaching is given in the New Testament than that of baptism. Much of the material presented will be redundant, showing over and over again the same basic truths from all of the passages on the subject.
INTRODUCTION
A systematic way to properly resolve biblical issues is to: (1) consider and write down all of the possible alternatives; and then (2) study all passages in the bible (or New Testament if it is a New Testament issue), and determine which of the alternatives has the greatest supporting evidence behind it. 2 Tim 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [handling aright -- ASV] the word of truth."
Arguing passages and counter-passages separate from a comprehensive view is a forever process with little hope of reaching any resolution or agreement. However, if our hearts are right we should be able to consider the preponderance of scriptural evidence and just do the best we can to believe and obey what God says in His word. Can God expect any more of us? We believe we owe Him no less.
In this study there are just two alternatives:
- The bible teaches that water baptism is essential to one’s salvation; and
- The bible teaches that water baptism is not essential to one’s salvation.
Before you get started pray that your heart will be opened to the truth of God's word. Then consider the following question: Is giving your life to Jesus Christ essential to salvation? Answering that question honestly and truthfully will make what follows quite simple.
Note that the two alternatives given above are speaking of general case -- that which in all likelihood applies to you and me and everyone that we know. The question is not: “Could God make an exception?” All would agree that God is the ultimate judge, and in His infinite wisdom could make exceptions to what would otherwise seem to be clear biblical teaching. But if we based all of our religious teachings on the fact that God could make exceptions to what we are reading, then we are left with nothing but anarchy.
Does the fact that a few people have survived after their parachutes failed when they jumped out of airplanes mean that everyone can jump out of a plane without a parachute and expect to survive? Making exceptions into rules is not just illogical; it is an insult to God who gave us our brains to be used for His glory.
The question is: “What does the preponderance of biblical evidence teach on the subject?” This, and this alone, should determine what we believe and teach on this or any other bible subject (1 Cor. 4:6: 2 John 9).
First Some Basic Definitions
There are some who are so eager to discount the biblical teachings on baptism that they will attempt to change the normative meaning of the word. In all cases, beginning with the baptism of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:1; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 1:6) through to the allegorical reference to baptism by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21, the normative meaning of the word is baptism in water. Those who wish to refute this will insist that the word always be qualified so that we know what type of baptism it is referring to. This is an unreasonable requirement that they place on the scriptures. If, in fact, every time water baptism was meant, the word water always preceded baptism, this would infer that there was another common baptism being practiced. In fact there was no other type of baptism commanded -- search the scriptures and see if you can find where baptism in the Holy Spirit is commanded. You might make that one of your objectives as we continue, since we will be examining virtually all passages that deal with baptism.
On the other hand, whenever Holy Spirit baptism is meant by the writers, then it is so qualified (e.g., baptized in or with the Holy Spirit). However, the nouns "Holy Spirit" and "water" are never used as adjectives to qualify the word baptism. This terminology has become common today, but clearly the biblical writers did not feel that it was necessary. There was only one baptism practiced by Christians (Eph. 4:4). The question of what a word means in a given context should answer the question: "what did this writer intend to convey by using this word?"
In the lessons on this page the following will become abundantly clear:
- The normative meaning of the word baptism is baptism in water (not in the Holy Spirit);
- Baptism in the Holy Spirit is only recorded twice in the New Testament: Acts 2 and Acts 10 -- these cases will be covered in our discussions below. The two baptisms in the Holy Spirit were clearly miraculous events to confirm the truth that was being revealed by the Holy Spirit at the time. The burden of proof is on the teachers who claim baptisms in the Holy Spirit take place today to explain the absence of consistency with the biblical record in this regard, since these were clearly supernatural events to prove that the event taking place was of God.
- Those who want to replace the normative meaning of the word "baptism" with "baptism in the Holy Spirit" have a clear motive and purpose -- it is to confuse those who have not given diligent study to this subject. When you get through this series of biblical lessons on this subject, you will be an expert on this subject. We say this because there is nothing more that you can learn about baptism beyond what the bible teaches on the subject.
- We understand and will discuss the fact that baptism is not just getting wet or adhering to a ritual -- read and understand all of Romans Chapter 6 and you will see the deeper significance of this event, which is a major turning point in the lives of those who recognize and submit to Jesus' commands.
- We will deal specifically with the question of whether the normative use of the word baptism refers to water or to the Holy Spirit in Lesson 16.
We recognize that the word baptism is also used in a figurative sense, taking advantage of it meaning -- an immersion. Let us consider what the Greek scholar James Strong defined the words:
Baptizo
NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:
KJV - Baptist, baptize, wash.
Baptisma
NT:908 baptisma (bap'-tis-mah); from NT:907; immersion, baptism (technically or figuratively):
KJV - baptism.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Thus, when Jesus said in Luke 12:50: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" the meaning is clear. He was to be immersed in misery and pain. The use of the word figuratively in this way illustrates the necessity for immersion in water to be the only mode of baptism that is administered by those commanded of Jesus to practice it (Mt. 28:18). This leads us to our first lesson.
The lessons below attempt to go through the New Testament and explore all that the bible says about baptism in order to resolve the issue defined above. Each of the lessons is quite short, and we recommend that you read and meditate upon them, perhaps one per day over the next few weeks. Perhaps no single lesson will be totally conclusive, but the sum total of evidence that will be presented will be overwhelming.
BAPTISM LESSON 1 – THE GREAT COMMISSION
Whether we should teach and command baptism should be determined by the preponderance of scriptural evidence. We are not at liberty to arbitrarily add to or take away from God's word (2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19).
This is not a matter of opinion. Either God wants us to teach and practice baptism for the remission of sins or He does not. Let us begin with Matt 28:18-20:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Jesus told the apostles that they were to teach all disciples to observe "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." One of the things that Jesus commanded (right here) was that they baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This in turn requires each of us to teach and practice the same things that they did in the first century (that which we can easily read about it the New Testament). "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you" means that we too, like the apostles, are to teach those who would become Christians ALL things -- not just one thing, not just the half of the New Testament we like, but ALL things that Jesus commanded them, and therefore, commanded us.
If baptism is not important then why did Jesus incorporate it right into the Great Commission?
We are not only to be baptized, but we are to baptize, and we are to teach those who we convert to baptize. This is all inherent in the passage quoted above, since what Jesus commanded them was to be taught and thus commanded of all disciples for all time.
I do not consider this to be at all conclusive. Please bear with me and be patient. This is just one of many bits of evidence. Please weigh them all.
Also, in your study seek to find where the bible states that “baptism is just an outward sign of something that has already gone on inside.” You will not find it -- please use a computerized concordance and you will verify this. Ask yourself why people say this over and over and over when it is not taught in any passage of scripture. Baptism is "not just" anything -- it is everything that the New Testament teaches that it is. Clearly Jesus made it a major part of the Great Commission.
As a side note, all Christians are commanded, and thus authorized, to baptize those who have indicated their faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This demonstrates that the person doing the baptizing is not significant. No special ordination or credentials are needed. This is part of all Christians being the holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, 9) that is the body of Christ on the earth today.
BAPTISM LESSON 2 – MARK’S VERSION OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
Before leaving the great commission, let us consider Mark's version of it: Mark 16:15-16:
And he [Jesus] said unto them, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned."
In Matthew's version, Jesus commands them to baptize believers; here he states that the salvation of those who are not baptized is questionable.
While I realize that people have gone to great lengths to explain this clear condition of salvation away, I just wonder why? Why not just accept what it says?
Why would Jesus connect baptism to salvation at all if, in fact, he wants us to teach that those who are not baptized are already saved? Or that baptism is just "an outward sign of something that has already gone on inside" -- an extremely common saying that has no basis whatsoever in the New Testament.
There are two counter-arguments lodged at this passage; we will consider them in the following paragraphs.
Argument 1: The last few verses of Mark 16 are not in some Greek manuscripts. This is accurate. But there is no reason to summarily dismiss a passage because it is not in some of the Greek manuscripts. (Are we insisting that for a writing to be considered authentic it must appear in ALL of the ancient manuscripts?) It is easy to see how the end of Mark could have been lost in some of the scrolls. In addition, consider which of the two alternatives is more reasonable: (1) that a scribe would add these verses in, or (2) that it might have gotten omitted due to a copying omission or a damaged scroll. Adding verses such as this is a sin of commission (see Rev. 28:18-19) that no faithful scribe would ever be guilty of, knowing the full consequences of his actions. On the other hand, the omission of some verses is something that could well have taken place accidentally and totally without the intention or knowledge of the scribe. Please read the last chapter of the book of Mark quite carefully. The questionable verses are those after verse 8. In other words, if the questionable passage is omitted, then Mark would have ended his record with the following verse (16:8): “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Who can believe that this is how Luke would end his gospel? Please read the rest of the chapter and see if it is not far more reasonable to conclude that these verses belong in our bibles. Jesus accepted the commonly used translation of his day, and this passage is in our most commonly used translations today. Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Argument 2: Jesus did not say “he who disbelieves and is not baptized shall be condemned.” Some insist that if baptism is essential then Jesus should have put two conditions on being lost. However, logically, had he made this statement one could be baptized (immersed) without believing and still be saved. (Those of you who have studied logic will see this quickly.) To be logically correct, the statement would have to read: “he who disbelieves or is not baptized shall be condemned.” However, this is redundant because those who believe what Jesus teaches will be baptized. How can someone give themselves to Jesus and the flaunt one of his most basic and easiest commands. Belief in this context includes not only baptism but the many other conditions that Jesus laid down for our salvation. Note the following conditions in addition to baptism: hearing (or more accurately, listening) to the gospel message (Jn. 6:44-45); belief of this message (Jn. 3:16); repentance from our past sins (Luke 13:3f); confession of our belief that Jesus is the Son of God (Mt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9); and being faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10). Would not Jesus have to enumerate all of these conditions and not just two of them if he were going to state what a person had to do (or had to not do) in order to be lost. The word “disbelief” covers them all, as we will see in many other passages.
In summary, Mark 16:16 is not essential to complete all that the bible says about baptism, but it does provide and excellent and profoundly sublime summary that it is hard to imagine could have come from the mind of a scribe -- these are the words of Jesus.
BAPTISM LESSON 3 – “WHAT SHALL WE DO?” (ACTS 2)
Just prior to beginning his public ministry Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3:15), and he provides a perfect example for us (1 Pet. 2:21). We have seen that Jesus commanded us to teach all things that the apostles were taught, including not only to be baptized, but to baptize (Mt. 28:18). We also saw where Jesus made baptism a condition of salvation (Mk. 16:16).
The first gospel sermon after Jesus' ascension into heaven is recorded in Acts 2 (it was the first Pentecost after the crucifixion). Peter convinced most of those present that they had been responsible for the crucifixion of the Son of God. We pick up the story in Acts 2:37-38:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Was Peter lying and in sin by giving this response? It is clear that these people now believed all the words of the gospel that Peter has preached to them. They had met the condition of faith. They believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he had been sacrificed for their sins. They believed that he was ascended to heaven and was sitting at the right hand of God. This belief was so strong that it struck fear in their hearts. Here was the perfect opportunity for Peter to say: "you don't have to do anything – you believe, so you are saved." (Some go so far as to teach that if you do anything at the point to obey God that it is an attempt to earn your salvation by works and thus obedience would be sinful. Nothing new in this; read Isa. 5:20).
Let us not be distracted, read what Peter did say. This is in direct response to the question: "what must we do?" Answer: “Repent ye, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins …”
Must we have to do anything different today from what they were required to do? If so this would make God a respecter of persons, and He is not that (see Acts 10:34-35), and as we go through the examples below we will see the total consistency in the application of the requirements of the gospel to all peoples, races and economic classifications, further proving that God has the same requirements for salvation for all of mankind.
Note also that this passage teaches that baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ unto (or for) the remission of sins." "In the name of" means by the authority of – Jesus Christ is the one who gave the command. Remission of sins is the forgiveness of past sins, blotting them out so that they are seen by God no more.
We have heard two counterarguments to this very clear passage.
Argument 1: Baptism is not in water but is in the Holy Spirit. We will deal with this in detail in the very next lesson. We will see that the word baptism when it is unqualified or not otherwise modified by the context refers to water baptism. What did John the Baptist baptize in? What was Jesus baptized in to fulfill all righteousness? The hearers in this context would have no idea what the baptism of the Holy Spirit was, but they understood the commonly practiced baptism of that time. Holy Spirit baptism was never taught as a command; it was taught to be a promise. We will show definitively in the next lesson that this command (as well as that of the Great Commission) had to refer to water baptism. But even with the information we have studied to this point if we were to accept the premise that this is referring to Holy Spirit baptism, then we have several questions that the false teachers of this doctrine are duty-bound to answer:
- While it is quite simple to see how they would obey the command to be baptized in water, how would they accomplish being baptized in the Holy Spirit? Prove your answer with scripture (there is none).
- While it seems clear that the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 (this will be shown definitively in Lesson 8 below), there is no indication that anyone other than the apostles received this baptism, nor that they even understood what a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" was. So, while attempting to give an answer to the first question above, recognize that this is something that all of the 3000 who were baptized were expected to understand at this point.
- Acts 2:41: "They then who received his word were baptized, and there were added (unto them) in that day 3000 souls." What can be said about those who refused to be baptized (for whatever reason)?
- Can we even conceive of the possibility that some would object and accuse Peter of teaching salvation by works because he commanded them to be baptized for the remission of their sins?
- If baptism was for the remission of their sins, and they were saved prior to baptism, then were they saved while still in their sins?
- We will deal specifically with the question of whether the normative use of the word baptism refers to water or to the Holy Spirit in Lesson 16.
Argument 2: The word baptism here merely means faith. This must be the case, they reason, since John 3:16 states only one condition of salvation: faith. If Peter meant to teach faith only, why would he use the word baptism? Why not just use the words faith of belief? Such reasoning turns the bible on its ear in order to justify the false teaching of faith only. The only way to harmonize John 3:16 with Acts 2:38 is to realize that believing in Christ will lead a person to repent and be baptized, or for that matter, to want to do all of God’s commands once we are born again and give ourselves to Jesus as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). This is also taught quite clearly in the second chapter of James.
BAPTISM LESSON 4 – CONVERSION OF THE SAMARITANS (ACTS 8:4-25)
The next few lessons will consider the detailed cases of conversion that are documented in the book of Acts. We have already considered the first of these in Acts 2. Some go to great lengths to assert that Acts cannot be used for doctrinal purposes -- a tacit admission that the examples in the book of Acts totally destroy their false doctrines. On the other hand, if historical accounts such as Acts cannot be used for doctrinal purposes, then what about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, which are all historical accounts? Are we to believe that the ten commandments are not valid because they are embedded in an historical account? Most attempts at countering obvious truth become absurd when taken to their logical conclusions.
Each detailed case of conversion illustrates something unique. Acts 2 involved those Jews who were most instrumental in the crucifixion of Christ. The next detailed cases are in Acts 8. These occurred after the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen (recorded in Acts 7).
Acts 8:4-5
"They therefore that were scattered abroad, went about preaching the word. 5 And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ."
The thing unique about this is the extension of the gospel to the Samaritans ... certainly in fulfillment to the command to take the gospel to all peoples (nations). Do a Google search sometime and read about the animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. While they had some religious things in common, for the most part Samaritans were abhorred by most Jews, very much akin to the animosity between Jews and Palestinians today. And so Jesus used the extreme case of the "Good Samaritan" to indicate that we should love and regard all peoples as God's beloved children and hence neighbors. In other words, the taking of the gospel to idolaters in distant lands would seem much more feasible than including the Samaritans. Despite this, note that Samaritans were not considered to be pure Gentiles, since the first Gentiles converted does not occur until Acts 10.
The pattern of their conversion was the same as that on Pentecost (Acts 2) ... Acts 8:12-13:
"But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed."
The implication here is that as soon as they heard the gospel preached they responded to it by being baptized. Reading on in this passage also confirms that the baptism talked about here is water baptism.
Acts 8:14-17: "Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."
If they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would have already fallen upon them. Clearly this had not taken place, and later we will see that it only took place in two places: recorded in Acts 2 and in Acts 10. But for now, let us observe just how the Holy Spirit was imparted in its miraculous measure to some Christians in the first century.
Acts 8:18-10: "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
Clearly, it was “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands [that the] Holy Spirit was given” in its miraculous measure. These gifts were imparted to many Christians through the apostles (Acts 2:43). While these spiritual gifts included the ability to perform a variety of miracles (see 1 Cor 14:26; Eph. 4:8-13), the laying on of the apostles hands was never called a baptism in the Holy Spirit.
At this point we just want to confirm our earlier assertion that when the word baptism appears in general in the New Testament, it is referring to water baptism unless the context indicates otherwise. Those who would change this normative meaning of the unqualified word baptism certainly have a motivation that is easy to see through.
BAPTISM LESSON 5 – CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN (ACTS 8:26-40)
After the Samaritans, the next detailed case of conversion is the Ethiopian eunuch, who was in all probability the first black man converted. (Again, this illustrates the gospel being taken to all nations, races, colors, etc. consistently with the Great Commission.) The Ethiopian man had come to Jerusalem to worship, so he was a proselyte Jew, and he was returning home and reading the prophet Isaiah when Philip was led by the Holy Spirit to help him. We pick up the story in Acts 8:35-39:
"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, (here is) water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37(And Philip said, If you believe with all thy heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.) 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing."
From this passage we can see that, again consistently with the Great Commission(see Lesson 1), to "preach Jesus" includes the preaching of baptism. The eunuch had a sense of urgency regarding his baptism, and Philip did nothing to dissuade him from it. What should our response to such a question be today?
Also, can anyone question that the baptism spoken of in verse 36 is water baptism? “Here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?” When we talk about a normative meaning we merely mean that this is the sense in which the word is typically used when not otherwise qualified.
BAPTISM LESSON 6 – CONVERSION OF THE SAUL - 1 (ACTS 9)
Probably the most famous conversion in the bible is that of Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as the Paul. the apostle. While Paul's conversion was prefaced by some miraculous events, he was taught the truth and obeyed it just like all of the other cases of conversion in the New Testament, and just like we should today. This is seen both from Acts 9 and Paul's later description of these events while making his defense in Jerusalem. We will consider these in separate lessons.
Please consider the first recording of the event itself in Acts 9:3-19:
"And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He {said,} "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." 7 And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. 8 And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank. 10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, {here am} I, Lord." 11 And the Lord {said} to him, "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight." 13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." 17 And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus."
This rendering does not give all of the details (as we shall see in the next lesson), but it does give the detail of baptism. Note that it was immediate and in direct response to hearing the truth. Why should this not be our pattern today?
God used a punitive miracle -- that of being struck blind -- to get Saul's attention. We learn in other places that Saul felt strongly in his heart that he was serving God when he persecuted (and even indirectly killed) Christians. God had mercy on Saul in this regard, but it was still up to Saul to exert his free will and to obey the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Ananias. Please do not let anyone tell you that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus -- surely you know better from the passage above. In the next lesson we will learn that Paul was still in his sins until he was baptized, which is consistent with the Acts 2 indication that baptism is for the remission (total forgiveness) of one's sins.
BAPTISM LESSON 7 – CONVERSION OF THE SAUL - 2 (ACTS 22)
While we are considering the conversion of Saul in Acts 9, it might be good to jump ahead to Paul's recounting of this event in Acts 22 when he is giving his defense in Jerusalem before a Jewish crowd that had threatened his life. This is how he described he conversion:
Acts 22:6-16
"And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute. 9 And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. 12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, 13 came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on his name."
The following can be concluded from the above passage:
- Saul recognized that there was something that he needed to do, and he was not discouraged at all from doing it. The question today: "What shall I do?" is far too often answered by "Nothing." Or worse: "if you do anything then you are earning your salvation and you will thus lose it." We never read hear any such thing in the New Testament! The entire bible pleads for us to obey God and comply with all of His commands; to turn obedience into sin is the height of depravity (Isa. 5:20). Paul never argued with Jesus, he did his best to obey.
- Saul was converted just like everyone else. He was taught the truth by means of a human agent (Ananias). He had to make the hard decision -- do I continue to enjoy my status are a Hebrew among Hebrews (Phil. 3:5)?, or do I accept the very persecution that I am trying to inflict?
- Saul was commanded to not tarry but to be baptized immediately. WHY??? Why is this NOT the practice in most churches today?
- The effect of baptism was to "wash away thy sins." If Saul was saved prior to baptism, then he would be saved in his sins. If he had already been forgiven of them then why does Ananias plead for him to wash them away. Paul had been three days in total blindness and without food prior to Ananias coming to him. Is is conceivable that he did not pray for forgiveness (the "sinners prayer") during this time?
- This is totally consistent with the purpose of baptism from Acts 2:38; recall: "And Peter (said) unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
BAPTISM LESSON 8 – FIRST GENTILES CONVERTED (ACTS 10-11)
After the conversion of Saul, the next detailed cases of conversions are the first gentiles who were led to Christ. We have seen that each case of conversion illustrates something new and different, and yet, they all show uniformity in the conditions and method of conversion. Someone taught the prospect the truth, and that person responded with faith in that teaching. They heard the gospel, believed what they heard, repented of their past sins, were willing to confess their faith in Christ, and were baptized for the remission of their sins. While all details are not given in all cases, there is no reason to believe that any of the cases of conversion lacked these any of these elements.
Acts 10 details how Peter received a special revelation from God that led him to the Gentile Cornelius and his household. The following is his teaching to these gentiles and the events that followed:
Acts 10:34-48:
"And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to him.
36 The word that he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all.) 37 that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 (even) Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. 40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, 41 not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, (even) to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God (to be) the Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believes on him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The comment of Peter about “God not being a respecter of persons” is quite relevant to understanding this passage. Also, the entire passage needs to be read from 10:1 through 11:18. All Christians to this point were Jews, including the Samaritans, who were nominally of Jewish background. There was tremendous pressure by some within the church to prevent Gentiles from being baptized unless they were first circumcised. This problem seems not to have been solved in the first century, and you can read about it in much detail in the book of Galatians (see especially Gal. 5). It also motivated the conference that was held in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit revealed clearly that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised to receive baptism. Peter brought several Jewish brethren with him to the conversion of Cornelius and his household (and friends) so that they could witness God's acceptance of the Gentiles without their keeping any provisions of the Old Testament law (things that Paul often alludes to as "works").
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is only the second such event recorded in the book of Acts (and hence the New Testament in general), and it was a spectacular event. Note verse 45 above that we have put in bold. This miraculous baptism in the Holy Spirit seems more for the benefit of the Jews who came with Peter than for the benefit of the new Gentile converts.
Two things are quite clear regarding our subject:
- Baptism was commanded of the new gentile converts by the apostle even though they had already been miraculously baptized in the Holy Spirit;
- This clearly demonstrates that baptism in the Holy Spirit is not unto the remission of sins; and
- Baptism had special significance to the Jewish Christians. The general practice (at least by some) was to prevent those who were not circumcised from being baptized.
Peter continues to explain the events in Acts 11:15-18:
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. 17 If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? 18 And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
Points to ponder:
- There was something special about what happened to the apostles when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost – read Acts 2. Nothing like this had happened since – at least it is not recorded. And the implication here is that it was unique, or else Peter could not refer to it as "what happened to us at the beginning."
- That this miraculous event is a baptism in the Holy Spirit is quite clear from Acts 11:16. Baptism in, and the working of the Holy Spirit is not the subject of this series of articles; it is a complex subject that deserves its own detailed study. Do not allow false teachers to make it up as they go along -- if they cannot prove what they say from scripture, they should be shunned and avoided.
- It is clear from this passage, however, that baptism in the Holy Spirit is not a substitute for water baptism. For, after the gentiles were baptized in the Holy Spirit they were still commanded to be baptized in water.
- Holy Spirit baptism was never commanded; it was promised, not commanded. There are only two places where it can be found in the New Testament, and both are in the book of Acts -- Acts 2 and Acts 10-11. In both cases those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit were not even expecting it, and so could not be obeying any command.
- There are not instructions (commands, examples or inferences) whatsoever in the New Testament for just how to perform baptism in the Holy Spirit -- another reason that it could not be a command. It is not "performed" like water baptism is. God decided where and when baptisms in the Holy Spirit would take place, and if He should make that decision again today, we will surely know it as they did back then. But the New Testament makes no prophecy that such an even will occur.
- Verses 17 and 18 again reiterate the major purpose of ushering in the first Gentile converts with a miracle – so that there could be no question on the part of the Jews (especially Jewish Christians) that the Gentiles were acceptable to God without yielding obedience to the Law of Moses (e.g., circumcision).
BAPTISM LESSON 9 – CONVERSION OF LYDIA (ACTS 16:13-15)
Acts 12 considers the death of James the brother of John. Acts 13 and 14 are the events of Paul's first missionary journey, and Acts 15 (as we mentioned earlier) records the conference that dealt with the issue of circumcision. The next detailed cases of conversion are in Act 16. There are two of them and we will discuss them in separate lessons.
After the conference at Jerusalem, Paul went with Silas on his second missionary journey, and eventually came to Philippi. The conversion of Lydia and her household is described at that point ...
Acts 16:13-15:
“And on the Sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide (there). And she constrained us.”
Baptism in this situation seems to be assumed by Luke. It does not state that she was baptized to establish that as a practice, but says "and when she was baptized" indicating that the reader should expect that this would be done immediately. At this point the baptism of believers was a very well established fact so we would expect a "matter of fact" type of expression regarding it.
Baptism only? The very last thing that we would ever teach is that one is saved by baptism ONLY. We are not saved by anything ONLY. When you put the word ONLY behind something it eliminates the rest of what the bible teaches regarding God’s plan of salvation and the Christian way of life. In fact, it even changes the meaning of the noun being modified. Baptism only is much different from baptism. Repentance only is much different from repentance. And, of course, faith only is dramatically different from living faith (James 2), The bible NEVER states that we are saved by anything ONLY. Please run a concordant search and verify that this is true.
But it is no surprise that the critics of the truth would make such an accusation. When we say that baptism is essential to salvation this is quite different from saying "baptism saves." While it seems clear from Romans 6:3 that we are baptized into Christ, the expression "baptism saves" it an accomodative one -- it is not to be taken literally. Getting wet does not save us -- we will elaborate upon this more in Lesson 17. For now recognize that baptism is not just getting wet else we could save many by just pushing them off of a pier. Both God and the individual being baptized contribute heavily to the process.
So, what is it about baptism that does save? It is only because baptism is commanded -- so it is the willingness within the heart of the individual that enables him or her to accept the free gift of God given by His grace.
Heb 5:8-9: “… though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; …”
Is Jesus your author of eternal salvation? ... or put another way, are you concerned with being obedient to him? Can we ignore his plain commands and still claim that he authored our salvation? What did he author if not His will for us today? Baptism is one of those commands.
BAPTISM LESSON 10 – CONVERSION OF PHILLIPIAN JAILER (ACTS 16:28-34)
There is a second detailed case of conversion in Acts 16. It occurs after Paul exorcises a spirit of divination from a young girl, thus denying her masters of the money they were making from her. They stir up a mob and Paul and Silas end up in stocks in prison, albeit still singing and praising the LORD. This is significant in that the jailer and the other prisoners had some knowledge of Paul and Silas' religious beliefs. After an earthquake and other miraculous events free all of the prisoners, the jailer is about to kill himself, since the fate of a Roman guard who loses his prisoners is not pretty to contemplate. We pick up the story at that point ...
Acts 16:28-34:
“But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. 32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. 34 And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God."
Verse 33 indicates that there was no delay in finalizing the jailer's conversion with the act of baptism.
The combination of verses 31-33 indicates that teaching ("spoke the word" – vs. 32) was involved in knowing just what "believe on the Lord Jesus" meant. It is clear that this teaching included repentance and baptism.
Why do so many preachers today stop at verse 31? Do they have something to hide?
BAPTISM LESSON 11 – APOLOS (ACTS 18)
We will divide this next incident down into two articles to keep things short. The events concerning Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, at the end of Acts 18, set up what immediately follows in Acts 19.
A little background. After Paul left Philippi (Acts 16), he went to Thessalonica, Beroea, and then to Athens (Acts 17). After this, he went on to Corinth (Acts 18). There he met fellow Jews Priscilla and Aquila who were of the same trade as Paul (tentmakers). He spent 18 months there (Acts 18:11), during which time Priscilla and Aquila were converted and became grounded in the truth.
Paul then left for Syria taking with him Priscilla and Aquila. They came to Ephesus (Acts 18:19), and after a short time, Paul went on to Caesarea, but he left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. The event that follows occurred at Ephesus during the time after Paul had left them at Ephesus.
Acts 18:24-26:
"Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: 26 and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately."
Points to ponder:
- The authority by which baptism is administered is as important as its form, or anything else for that matter. Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit means that it is done at their command and thus by their authority. Baptism by the authority of John the Baptist, some church, or anything else, is not acceptable. Question: was your baptism commanded by Jesus Christ or some denomination?
- Priscilla and Aquila (and Luke, the writer, for that matter) felt that baptism WAS an important subject to discuss. It was not one of those things were "we can all have our own opinion ..."
- From verse 26 we see that "the way of God" includes baptism since that was the only subject in which Apollos was in error.
- It is interesting to see that even in the first century when the gifts of the Holy Spirit were accessible to some Christians that the scriptures still played a major part in establishing authority. Apollos was “mighty in the scriptures.” See also the last verse of Chapter 18 “… for he powerfully confuted the Jews, (and that) publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” What can be accomplished by the scriptures alone does not require miraculous revelation. It is amazing how often throughout the book of Acts the preachers appeal to the scriptures and we wonder: "why don't they just perform a miracle?" There is a good answer to this question: they were doing what God wanted them to do.
We will take this subject up in more detail in the next lesson when we get into Acts 19.
BAPTISM LESSON 12 – THE EPHESIANS (ACTS 19)
The follow-up event to that which we discussed in the last lesson is given in the next chapter.
Acts 19:1-7:
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they (said) unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was (given). 3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. 4 And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And they were in all about twelve men."
Points to ponder:
- Apollos and those of Ephesus did not have the right understanding of baptism. They were baptized "into John's baptism" -- that is, according to the authority that God had given John the Baptist, and not by the authority of Jesus Christ. Clearly both of these were water immersion (baptism), but it is essential that we not only do the right thing, but that we do it for the right reason. They were being obedient to John, which was great when God sent John. But there was one greater than John to be obedient to now.
- Paul taught them the truth after which they were immediately baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Paul, an apostle, imparted to them gifts of the Holy Spirit, quite similar to the apostles who did the same thing for the Samaritans -- compare Acts 8 (Lesson 4). This further confirms that the baptism discussed is water baptism, for if it had been Holy Spirit baptism there would be no need for this further imparting of gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The question that Paul asked can have a variety of meanings and therefore might be misleading. "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" I suspect that Paul was referring to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. since at the end of this story this is exactly what he imparts to them. Calling the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit Himself is a common New Testament use of metonymy that is probably not even recognized by most readers because it is very common in our own language. But for the purpose of completeness and to whet our appetites for continued study in this area, notice the following similar statements relative to the Holy Spirit and their meanings:
- Acts 2:38: After they were commanded to be baptized, "... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." It is impossible to tell from this verse alone if Peter is indicating that the Holy Spirit would be giving them some gift, of if the gift they would receive would be the Holy Spirit. The following provides evidence that the gift is the Holy Spirit ...
- Acts 5:32: "And we [the apostles] are witnesses of these things and (so is) the Holy Spirit, whom God has given them that obey him." Quite comparable to Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit is indicated to be a gift to all who will be obedient to the commands of Jesus. We know that all Christians in the first century (or now for that matter) did not have the ability to perform miracles, so it could not be talking about miraculous gifts. The subject here is not miracles -- it is truth. All Christians have the truth by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit completed the revelation that was begun by Jesus (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). The gift of the Holy Spirit is indeed trivialized by reducing it to supernatural occurrences. These things did occur, but only to reveal and confirm the truth -- the important thing was the truth -- that is what would set us free (Jn. 8:32; Rom. 1:16-17).
- Acts 10:45, which we discussed in Lesson 8, " ... on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." What was it that was poured out on them? Was it the ability to do miracles -- is that what is important here? We think not -- more important than that was the ability to speak the truth, and indeed the truth itself. Who can deny that truth is more important than amazement?
Again, the study of the role and work of the Holy Spirit is not the focus of this study. We bring it up here only to provide some perspective on the words of Paul with regard to the Holy Spirit.
To review, the proposition that these lessons on baptism is supporting is that the New Testament teaches that baptism was commanded of converts in the first century, and that those who were not baptized were not obedient to Jesus and thus they were not considered to be members of the body of Christ. Let us now spend some time on determining how individuals get into Christ.
BAPTISM LESSON 13 – “BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST” - 1 (ROMANS 6)
Paul spends much of the first five chapters of Romans demonstrating the fact that we are not saved by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. He was concerned that this might lead some Christians to believe that being righteous and obedient to God’s commands was unnecessary to the Christian life. This is an appalling conclusion that many today have come to. To dispel this idea, he attacks it head-on in Chapter 6.
Rom 6:1-13:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts."
Of particular interest to the subject is the third verse above:
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
This verse necessarily implies that the Roman Christians understood that our obedience to the command of baptism puts us into Christ. Please study the context of this verse and see if it does not also demonstrate the following:
- When we become Christians we should die to sin. No one claims that this will make us perfectly sinless, but it is very clear from this context that this is to result in a complete change in our way of life.
- This complete change is further emphasized by likening it to a death -- note the terms "baptism into death" ... "baptized into His death" ... "buried with him through baptism into death."
- But this death is just to the old life; as Christ was raised from the dead, we are raised to walk in newness of life ... born a second time ... born again. Being born again is a condition of salvation (John 3:5ff). Can anyone read John 3:5 and deny that?
- The old man was crucified with Christ – killed. This is repentance ... godly sorrow that resolves that we will no longer walk in our old sinful ways. That old man is crucified and dead.
- The reborn man arises from the pits of this death to live for Jesus.
Let us reiterate the relationship between the Romans 6:4 “walk in newness of life” and the condition of salvation given in John 3:3: “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” and John 3:5: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!” Clearly this is a condition of salvation. How is it satisfied?
The death is described in Romans 6 as a crucifixion of the old man. Are we not spiritually dead as long as we are outside of Christ? Is it not reasonable that being born of the water and the Spirit is not satisfied in by the crucifixion of the old man and entering into the body of Christ via baptism? If this condition is not satisfied in this way, then how is it satisfied? Any other way invents a new way to get into Jesus, and thus it cannot be validate by scripture.
Some will argue that the water in John 3:5 is the water involved in the natural birth. This would then make Jesus statement equivalent to the following: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born naturally [of his mother] and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!” But this is rather a nonsense statement, is it not? Of course one has to be born to even be a human being. Why would Jesus make such a statement? It is far more reasonable to view Romans 6 as a commentary to John 3:1-5.
And then there are those who will argue that the baptism of Romans 6:3 is Holy Spirit baptism. We hope you are beyond that at this point, but just in case you might have some doubts, this will be covered once again in Lesson 16. Feel free to jump ahead.
BAPTISM LESSON 14 – “BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST” - 2 (1 COR. 12:12-13)
We saw the term "baptized into Christ Jesus" used in Romans 6:3: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”
If baptism is the act that puts us into Christ, then it certainly cannot just be disregarded as unimportant. The concept of being baptized into Christ is not at all unique to the book of Romans. Consider the following ...
1 Cor 12:12-13: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit."
and also …
Gal 3:26-29: “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one (man) in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
It seems quite clear that the first century Christians were taught by the apostles that their baptism put them into the body of Christ, or, as Paul often put it, into Christ Himself.
The counter argument is often made that this is talking about Holy Spirit baptism. However, that is not what we observed in the examples. When were people considered to be members of the Lord’s church in the first century? Answer: when they were baptized in water for the remission of their sins. Their sins were washed away and they were born again into the body of Christ.
To ignore these passages by the ruse of calling it Holy Spirit baptism creates far more problems for the false teachers than it solves. Do you have Holy Spirit baptism services? Is this scriptural? What do such events consist of? Do miracles occur as they did in all cases of biblical Holy Spirit baptisms? Please do not let the false teachers make it up as they go along. The burden of proof is on them to show that Paul was not using the normative meaning of the word baptism in these passages. See Lesson 16.
BAPTISM LESSON 15 – REVISIT OF MARK 16:16
Now that we have gotten a broader understanding of the role of baptism, it is good to go back and revisit the clear statement of Jesus in Mark 16:16.
The statement "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" is a very clear statement that should be able to stand on its own. If this is all that we had it would be sufficient. However, all of the examples that validate this statement gives us confidence that the simple normative meaning of this statement is, in fact, what it means. This also further validated by the concept of being "baptized into Christ," for salvation is only in Christ (Jn. 14:6).
Consider the statement "They that obtain a marriage license and take their marriage vows are legally married." If this statement is valid, could it be reasoned in any way that one can just get a license and be legally married? Or could one just take the vows and skip the license and still be legally married. If it further stated that -- "if they do not get a license they will not be legally married" -- would this change the first statement? Does this automatically mean that they do not need to take their vows? Of course not, it does not nullify the first statement. (Remember, the first statement is totally true and valid!)
We might ask: How could Jesus have re-made this statement to satisfy the critics?
Let us consider some alternatives:
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned.
This places two conditions on being condemned, and it logically contradicts the first clause. The second statement: "he that disbelieves and is not baptized shall be condemned" places two conditions on condemnation -- disbelief AND a failure to be baptized. So, someone could be baptized and not believe and they would not be condemned. Jesus would never make such an illogical statement. We trust you were not looking for this alternative.
Logically, to make a consistent statement, it would need to appear as follows:
16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves OR is not baptized shall be condemned.
Question: if this statement appeared in the New Testament, would that be sufficient? My feeling is that most people would see this as being more confusing than Jesus' more elegant and simpler statement.
Why is it unnecessary for non-baptism to be spelled out? Simply because, if someone does not believe they will not be baptized, so disbelief includes non-baptism. Can you imagine the case in which a non-believer gets baptized anyway? Now, can you imagine the case in which someone totally trusts in Jesus, but determines that they are not going to be obedient to him in baptism. I think it is only right to ask -- if they are not going to trust Jesus in this regard, then what command are they going to obey?
Please also compare this with Matthew's record of the same statement (the great commission; Matt. 28:18-20): “And Jesus came to them and spoke unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
Jesus commanded them and us to teach all things that he commanded them. Very clearly he commanded them to be baptized. To state that someone can be saved in disobedience to this command is as valid as stating that someone can be saved in disobedience to any command that God has given, including the command to believe.
BAPTISM LESSON 16 – IS OUR BAPTISM IN WATER OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?
Just prior to beginning his public ministry Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3:15): “But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he allowed Him.” Realize that Jesus provides a perfect example for us (1 Pet. 2:21) “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps…” There is no scholar or other ecclesiastic authority who ever questioned that John the Baptist baptized in water, so clearly Jesus was baptized in water. Do those who seek to come up with an alternative really believe that some mystical invisible thing will be following Jesus. How can they avoid the fact that water is stated over and over again in scripture (e.g., Acts 11:16; John 3:23 “And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” If Jesus was baptized in water to fulfill all righteousness, whose righteousnss are we fulfilling when we come up with some undefined alternative?
In one sense Jesus' baptism of John was not identical to ours because he subjected himself to the Father through John the Baptist, who was the one sent of God at that time. Today we subject ourselves to God through the Son (Hebrews 1). Our baptism is in the name (by the authority of) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:18-19). However, exactly like Jesus, we are doing the will of God when we submit ourselves to this command.
If still in doubt about what baptism is commanded of us today, consider just a few obvious examples that occurred after the church was established, as recorded in Acts 2.
- The Samaritans (Acts 8:5-17). Very clearly their baptism was in water and after baptized they were recognized as being saved and in the body of Christ (not before). They were clearly NOT baptized in the Holy Spirit and did not even receive any miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit until some of the apostles came from Jerusalem and laid hands upon them.
- The Ethiopian (Acts 8: 26-39). Verse 38 “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” No comment is necessary.
- The Ephesians (Acts 19:4-6) “And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.” Had their baptism been in the Holy Spirit, Paul would not have had to lay hands upon them to impart these gifts.
Finally, note the case in which some WERE baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48): “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Surely no one can argue that the baptism that Peter commanded was in the Holy Spirit since these people had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Yet, they were still subject to the command to be baptized in water by the authority of Jesus Christ (see Mt. 28:18-19).
Is should be clear to all except those who are trying to evade God’s commands that when the term “baptize in the name of Jesus Christ” is used in the New Testament without any other qualification that it is talking about water baptism.
Search the scriptures and confirm: water baptism was commanded. Holy Spirit baptism was promised to some (not to all, although its benefits accrue to all Christians of all times). Holy Spirit baptism was NEVER commanded.
BAPTISM LESSON 17 – 1 PETER 3:18-21
Please read 1 Peter 3:18-21 carefully: “Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ …”
What happened in the time of Noah? The earth was literally baptized (immersed, for that is what the Greek word baptiso means -- review the Introduction above). The earth was totally immersed in water. It was full of sinful people when it went down into the water. When it emerged from the water it was totally without these sinful people. The eight souls were saved (separated from the sinful worldly) through water. Clearly water baptism is under consideration.
Note the subject and the verb in the clause ...
"... water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you ..."
Subject: water
Verb: saves (doth now save)
We realize that the “water only” does not save -- no one is trying to teach that the water only saves. This is imagery. What saves is our yielding ourselves to God’s will. The ark did not save. God saved Noah by means of the ark. But Noah had to build the ark. Noah’s building the ark did not save him. It was his obedience to God’s will that saved him. We should try to do all that we can to be in compliance with God’s will. Our actions will not save us; but God will save us in His way (Rom. 1:16-17) when "the righteous shall live by faith."
Again, note:
" ... water: 21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, ..."
It is not water that saves, but this verse does say (if taken literally) that baptism saves. We believe Peter is speaking accomodatively in stating that baptism saves, because we know that just getting wet or taking a bath does not save. But that is not enough to just write something off. We also must determine the point that Peter was trying make with this figurative statement. What is it that saves? Peter answers the question ...
" ... not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God ..."
It is the obedience to Christ that enables us to access his precious saving blood. We cannot access it in ignorance and unbelief. We cannot access it in rebellion. We cannot access it with the idea of doing the minimum requirement -- giving our lives to Christ is not going to be accomplished by working to figure out what His minimal requirements are.
God has given us a simple means of hearing his word, repenting of our sins, being willing to confess our belief to all (that Jesus is the son of God), and being baptized into his body, followed by a life dedicated to the blessings that come from serving our Lord. It is a very simple and easy plan to follow. Getting wet does not save us, but yielding obedience out of a good conscience toward God qualifies us to be forgiven of our sins so that God will save us according to His promises. What this is saying is that our obedience to the command of Jesus Christ to be baptized (in and into his name) is "the answer of a good conscience toward God."
Don't just believe me -- accept the unbiased scholarly conclusions of the virtually all of the translation teams:
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NKJV):
" ... who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us — baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV):
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NASB):
",,, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you — not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NRSV):
20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:20-21 (RSV):
" ... who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
1 Peter 3:20-21 (NIV):
In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
It is certainly not wrong to say that "baptism saves" -- the bible does. This is not an unqualified statement, however. It is not some magic ritual, some holy water, or something that has to be administered by some ordained clergyman. It is simple obedience to Jesus Christ that comes from having a living faith (James 2).
No one denies that obedience to Christ is required for salvation. Our argument is only in what he has commanded. Some say he has commanded faith only. I think we have shown that faith only is an oxymoron. I think we all agree that baptism is a command to all disciples, and only after they obeyed this command were they recognized as part of the body of Christ.
If we do anything different from this, then we give people the impression that they are saved when they are not. There is no greater injustice and harm that one man can do to another than this. Even murder is not as grave a sin against our fellow man. Why is this taken so lightly?
BAPTISM LESSON 18 – OBJECTIONS FROM TITUS 3:4-7
Some object that passages such as Titus 3:4-7 teach salvation apart from baptism. Let us consider this in depth, since it appears from the evidence presented above that the vast preponderance of scriptural evidence supports our obedience to God’s clear command that we be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the purpose of remission of our sins and to add us to the body of Christ. Is there a contradiction?
Read Titus 3:4-7 carefully: “But when the kindness of God our Savior, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works (done) in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
The objection that we have heard is that being baptized is a work (which we do ourselves), and since we are not saved by such works, then baptism can have nothing to do with salvation. Since this is not a biblical doctrine, it has a lot of variations. It can range from those who still practice some form of baptism (for a wide variety of non-scriptural reasons), to those who might feel that if it is a work then it must be evil (sinful). I am not at all sure just what the reader’s position on it is. However, if you look at the context of Titus 3, you will see clearly that this passage has nothing at all to do with baptism. Baptism is not the subject that Paul is trying to address at this point.
If we want to see how the apostles practiced baptism we can simply consider the examples in the book of Acts. Let us assume that the premise that baptism is a work and that since we are not saved by works, commanding a new convert to be baptized is both misleading and wrong. Let us consider the examples ...
Acts 2:37-38 Now when they heard (this,) they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? 38 And Peter (said) unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If the premise give in italics above is true, then obviously Peter did not know it. It is obvious that they believed, so his answer should have been NOTHING -- you are already saved, so just go back to the synagogue of your choice and all will be well. Practice whatever baptism (or none for that matter) that they instruct you to. Peter even states that there is a relation between baptism and remission of sins. Was Peter trying to confuse them? If baptism is a work of man, it can have nothing to do with the remission of sins. But baptism is not a work of man; it is a working of God (Colossians 2:12 “…having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God , who raised him from the dead.”) Clearly Titus 3 is condemning a man-created plan of salvation -- something other than what God has given to us.
Remember again, the premise that we are evaluating is this: baptism is a work; since we are not saved by works, commanding a new convert to be baptized is both misleading and wrong (sinful).
Consider Acts 22:12-16 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.”
Was Ananias mistaken in what he commanded Paul? Is he saying that baptism washes away sins? This would be quite misleading if in reality is a work of man's creation.
I will not belabor things, but passages such as Acts 8:12, 8:36-38; 10:48; 16:15; 16:33; and 19:5 also provide evidence that the Holy Spirit did not view baptism as something to be avoided because it was a work of man.
So, how does this great weight of scriptural evidence harmonize with Titus 3:4-7:
“But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works (done) in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
I suppose if someone had the attitude that they invented baptism, or that their baptism was such a great work on their part that it justified their salvation, or earned it by being baptized, then this passage would definitely apply to baptism. We are not saved by any act of our own – the blood of Christ is what saves us, and that only because he lived a perfect life and gave up that life on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. NOTHING that we can do (not even the deepest of faith on our part) can erase our sins – only the blood of Christ can do that. This is what we should teach, and this is exactly what Titus 3 is teaching here.
Baptism does not earn pir salvation, but we all agree that it is a command of Christ. Disobedience to the commands of Christ can disqualify a person, making it impossible for the blood of Jesus to accomplish its purpose. We cannot be saved when in ignorance or rebellion. We need to hear the truth, and when we hear it we need to accept the beautiful life that is offered to us by it. How can anyone say that we earn anything when what we are given (even on this earth by the Christian life) is superior in happiness to any other life that man can conceive of. Indeed, salvation is a matter of faith -- believing that God has our best interests in mind in giving us the commands and life of the gospel.
There is no contradiction to Titus 3 and the concept that Christ has commanded us to be baptized. Both are totally, 100% true.
BAPTISM LESSON 19 – WHY THE HANGUP WITH BAPTISM?
Let us review again the major premise that is put forth by Jesus himself -- that we need to do God's will in order to access the blood of Christ. This is the major premise ...
Matt 7:21-23 “Not everyone that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Major premise: He that does the will of God will be saved – not by perfect law keeping or by meritorious works, but by FAITH that God will keep His word and that His word is the truth.
Minor premise: Baptism is a command of God, and thus part of the will of God.
The obvious conclusion follows: If we do not obey the command to be baptized for the remission of our sins, we are not “doing the will of God.”
Now for our article subject question: why get hung up on baptism?
There are some things that we are commanded to do in order to be acceptable to God that are much more difficult than just subjecting ourselves to baptism. Among them -- repentance (Luke 13:3), that is, turning from our old sinful life, called in Romans 6 a "crucifixion of the flesh" to highlight just how difficult it is, especially if we depend on our own strength to do it. Of course, we will get help from the Lord.
Also what about being a confession of Christ (Matt. 10:32-33); that is, being willing to confess our faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and walking the walk -- all of that is part of our confession. In fact, if we SAY we have faith in Christ and then turn back to demonstrate a sinful life to the world, we do far more harm to the cause of Christ than we do good. It would have been better never to have confessed with our mouth.
And, what does it mean to be faithful unto death? Rev 2:10: “Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death , and I will give thee the crown of life.”
Are we supposed to belittle this condition of salvation by calling it a work? Surely it is a much greater work than just subjecting ourselves to be baptized (an act itself in which we do nothing). If we are so eager to teach that the simple act of baptism can be dispensed with because it is “a work,” then what is it that we are supposed to be doing in living a faithful life?
Think about it -- why pick on baptism? Of all of the commands that we have, baptism is probably the easiest. It is not even something that we do, it is something that is done to us, so it can hardly be considered a working of our own hands, or something that could possibly merit our salvation.
All we are arguing for is what Jesus commanded when he said to "teach them whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:18-19). Jesus never said to teach that baptism is not necessary – that we are saved by faith only, or for that matter, anything only. No command of God should ever be relegated to a secondary position ... it's just wrong.
Again our warning – teaching others that God’s commands are optional or unnecessary is the greatest possible disservice that you can do to them. Please do not destroy them and yourself in the process.
BAPTISM LESSON 20 – COLOSSIANS 2:8-12
Please read Col 2:8-12 carefully: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
This passage is totally consistent with all of the other scriptural evidence on baptism.
What was circumcision under the old law? Was any proselyte (convert to Judaism) considered to be a Jew who was not circumcised? Was circumcision a command of the Old Testament law? Of course.
I think we all understand that we are no longer under that law, and so circumcision is not commanded of us today (Acts 15). But we also understand the role that it played from the time that the Mosaic law become effective until it was per-empted by Christ’s blood shed on the cross. But clearly, within the Jewish nation, which was "God's chosen people" at that time, and symbolic (a shadow) of His church today, males needed to be circumcised in order to considered as part of that nation.
In verse 11, what is "the circumcision of Christ?" Clearly it is not talking about circumcision under the OT law. It is being used metaphorically of something else. The answer is in verse 12 “... circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism ...”
The only argument that we can imagine is that this is not talking about water baptism. If that is the case then we need to come up with the scriptural basis for whatever alternative baptism it is talking about. To just assert, as some do, that this is some spiritualization of baptism, or that it is Holy Spirit baptism, is without scriptural basis.
Please run a concordant reference on all variations of Holy Spirit Baptism and you will see that it only occurred twice in the New Testament -- Acts 2 and Acts 10 (explained in our Acts 11 lesson). Holy Spirit baptism was never commanded, nor was it even expected of them who were baptized of the Holy Spirit when it did occur. And, in every case that it did occur, it was evidenced by the miraculous.
If, in fact, this and all other passages that teach that we are baptized into Christ are referring to Holy Spirit baptism, why do those who teach this practice water baptism at all? Water baptism would be totally unnecessary, so why is it practiced in some form in virtually all churches. The reason for their doing it is inexplicable -- that is their problem. But for us the question should be: Why was it commanded throughout the book of Acts? The answer to this is obvious -- because it is the will of God.
The Holy Spirit is indeed present in our baptism, but the normative meaning of the word baptism in the bible is immersion in water, beginning with the baptism of John on forward. Any alternative meaning of the word is obvious as such from the context. Thus, when some event occurs that is a baptism in the Holy Spirit, this is spelled out to us. This can clearly be seen by just getting a concordance and looking at all passages that use the term baptize, baptized, or baptism.
BAPTISM LESSON 21 – REVISIT OF ACTS 10 AND 11
Now that we have more background, let us reconsider the second case of Holy Spirit baptism – that which is recorded in Acts 10 and 11.
Read carefully the context, concentrating on the following:
Acts 10:44-48 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
Acts 11:12-18 “And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house: and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”
We urge everyone who is interested in learning the truth that is being taught from these passages to please read the entire two chapters of Acts 10 and 11 (through Acts 11:18, and perhaps a bit beyond) to get the entire context.
First note that these were the very FIRST gentiles who were converted; the very first ones who were baptized without first receiving circumcision. The timing is about 10 years after the day of Pentecost, so a lot of Jews (including Samaritans) had been converted by this time, and the gospel had been taken to quite a bit of the world by those who were converted due to the scattering that took place after the death of Stephen (see the first few verses of Acts 8).
There was obviously great resistance by many Jewish Christians to the baptism of Gentiles without their first being circumcised. If you do not understand this, then please read on through Acts 15 to see that this was a very serious problem in the early church. It also becomes quite clear in the first few verses of Acts 11.
Peter was led by the Spirit to take some prominent Jewish Christians with him to the conversion of Cornelius, his friend and his household, so that they could witness the fact directly from the Holy Spirit that the gentiles were acceptable to become Christians without being circumcised first.
Please think about it – circumcision before baptism would be a TREMENDOUS deterrent to the conversion of the gentiles. It involved pain, humiliation and tremendous cultural deterrents. Go over to Israel today and try to convince a Moslem Palestinian to be circumcised. Chances are you will not survive. In the first century there were tremendous cultural and racial barriers; Peter put it this way in Acts 10:28 "Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and (yet) unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean ..."
After this Peter preached the same gospel to them that had been preached on the day of Pentecost as far as their requirements were concerned. As he was preaching ...
Acts 10:44-48: “While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
This is the first time that anything like this happened to anyone except the apostles. Read the first ten chapters of the book of Acts to confirm this. Since the scriptures were not completed, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit had been given to some believers, but that had been accomplished by the laying on of the apostles hands. Read Acts 8:18 to verify that "it was by the laying on of the apostles hands that the Holy Spirit was given."
As we see in Chapter 11, this was a second occurrence of the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was manifested by unquestioned miracles. Surely, if the Jews with Peter COULD have argued that this was not a miracle, they would have. But their conclusion was: "on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Note Peter's question in verse 47: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"
Why would anyone forbid the water? If baptism was not at all important, and had nothing to do with salvation, why would Peter even bring up the subject? Did Peter and the Jewish Christians with him regard baptism in water to be significant? Should we not have the same regard for it as they did?
Verse 48 -- Peter commanded them to be baptized. If this were not a command of Christ then Peter was in sin for commanding such a thing. Should we command the same today? See Mt. 28:18.
The argument is made that since they received the gift of the Holy Spirit that they must have already been saved. The only reason that such an argument is made is to somehow conclude that baptism was not necessary for salvation. It really does not matter at what point God considered them to be saved (He and HE alone is the only one who really knows). But I think one thing is sure – had any of these individuals refused to be baptized according to Peter's command, they would not be considered to be Christians. Further, can anyone argue that they would be saved in such rebellion?
A comparable argument could be made regarding the Lord's Supper. Does the Lord's Supper save? Well, yes and no. Obviously it is not a meritorious work that earns us our salvation, nor is it some mystical magical thing that suddenly makes us right with God. Well, then, why do we do it? We do it because we want to do the will of Christ, and HE commanded it. If I decide that I am never going to obey this command to partake of the Lord's Supper again, will that condemn me? I would hate to stand before God with that attitude.
Now let's go on to Acts 11:1-4 “Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them. But Peter began, and expounded (the matter) unto them ...”
After which he told them the entire story ... we will pick it up toward the end. At this point it is important to note the animosity (contention) with which they were greeted by "they that were of the circumcision." That is how Luke describes Judaizing Christians – those who contended that Christianity was just a sect of Judaism, and that all Christians were under the law. Quite a bit of the instructions that Paul gives in his epistles are explained by this contentious attitude (see Acts 15).
Lets pick it up toward the end of the explanation ...
Acts 11:15-18: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as (he did) also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.”
Let's consider this one verse at a time:
- 15 "even as on us at the beginning" -- Read Acts 2 – that event is what Peter is referring to. You never see anything like this in Acts 3-9. True, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were given, but they were given by the laying on of the apostles hands (see Acts 8). THIS WAS DIFFERENT. It was needfully different since there was tremendous resistance within the church to Gentiles being baptized without first being circumcised.
- 16 -- this is only the second occurrence described as a baptism in the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. If all Christians were to be baptized in the Holy Spirit then it would be accompanied by miraculous gifts. Our Pentecostal friends are correct in this regard. However, they neglect the fact that many Christians had no miraculous spiritual gifts whatsoever and yet, they were still considered to be saved and considered to be just as much Christians as those who did receive the miraculous gifts. Bottom line -- this verse gives evidence that what was witnessed at the end of Acts 10 was a baptism in the Holy Spirit.
- 17 -- the "us" here is not at all definitive. If you look at Acts 2 it was only the apostles who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and several other subsequent verses indicate that early in the life of the church, most all of the miracles were done through the apostles (see Acts 2:43; 4:33; 5:12). It is reasonable that the “us” refers to the apostles.
- 17 -- who was I that I could withstand God? Peter did not withstand God – it was the Judiazing Christians who were imposing circumcision that were withstanding God. Peter is just using himself as an example here.
- 18 -- note the conclusion. The Gentiles who were saved did not need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Read Acts 8 and see that the Samaritans were saved without being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Also, the Eunuch later on in Acts 8 was also saved without being baptized in the Holy Spirit, nor did he receive any miraculous gifts. This demonstration was to the end that the very conclusion in this verse would be reached ... "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
Is repentance a condition of salvation? Does repentance save?
Both baptism and repentance are commands of God and conditions of salvation (see Luke 13:3). Ignoring either one can keep us from being saved; however, I would not say that "baptism only saves" anymore than I would say "repentance only saves." Both are only a part of the story. Faith in Jesus Christ requires that we practice and tell the whole gospel story (Rom. 1:16-17; Acts 10:26-27).
BAPTISM LESSON 22 – REVISIT OF ROMANS 6
While we considered Romans 6 above, with the additional background that we have now, it will be good to see if we can get more of the meat out of this passage.
Please read Rom. 6:1-7 carefully: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also bein the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.”
The word baptism in the New Testament literally means immersion, and typically that was in water (not in any religious sense). So, if a person was pushed into and under the water, it could be said that they were immersed. The Greek word was never translated. If it were translated, it would read "immersed" in our bibles. Perhaps that would have acquired some religious connotation (as the word "church" has). It is somewhat unfortunate that the translators for the most part transliterated the word, thus making it into some strictly religious word, and in the process, it lost its original meaning to most readers.
The normative meaning of the word baptism is immersion in water. This can be seen from Peters usage of it in Acts 10:47: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"
He did not say "water baptized" or "baptized in water" because everyone knew exactly what he meant when he said the word baptism. Please get a concordance and go through the entire new testament and you will see that it is used in other senses than immersion in water with only a very few exceptions. We all recognize that getting wet alone is of no value, and that something else must have preceded baptism, and that baptism must be in obedience to the command of Jesus, and thus for the specific purpose that he ordained it to have.
With this in mind, let us consider the meaning of Romans 6:1-7:
- 1 -- Read chapter 5. Paul had just established the fact that we are not saved by law keeping but by grace. Does this mean that we can do whatever we want and do not need to be concerned with the will of Christ for us? Absolutely not. (Note that Paul did not use the words “God Forbid” ... that would seem to me to be pretty close to using God's name in vain ... that was not his meaning ... the meaning is "absolutely not" – or, there is no room for there to be any doubt whatsoever.)
- 2 -- Paul is speaking to Christians here. When did they die to sin? When did YOU die to sin? There must have been some distinct point in your life when you decided to turn your back on sin (repent), and thus DIE to sin (e.g., separate yourself from sin). The point is – if this in fact took place in your life, then how can you continue to sin?
- 3 -- Why does Paul bring up the subject of baptism? Is this in some way connected with separating ourselves from sin? If Paul were speaking about some mystical Holy Spirit experience here, would they even understand what he was talking about? No such experience has been defined anywhere in the bible. People become recognized as members of the body of Christ by being baptized in water for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). There is absolutely no reason to apply anything but the normative meaning of the word baptism to the meaning of the word in this verse. So, what was Paul talking about?
- 4 -- The answer -- baptism is figurative of being buried with Christ? How? Christ went into the grave carrying our sins, but came out leaving those sins behind. We go into the watery grave of baptism with our sins, but come up out of the water without them. So it is perfectly reasonable that Annaias would say to Paul: "why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." or that Peter stated that they were to be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). It all fits together without any assumptions. And so, when we come up out of the waters of baptism we are to walk "in newness of life." Can we call this a new birth, a new life? Paul did. This responds to John 3:5 -- again -- it all fits together.
- 5 -- Those who obey the gospel are to live lives following the teachings of Christ.
- 6 -- Before repenting of our sins we were slaves to sin, and totally gave ourselves to it. Repentance is the crucifixion of the "old self" so that we are no longer slaves of sin.
- 7 -- As Christians we should be free from sin and in as close obedience to Christ as we possibly can be. We know that we will never be perfect or sinless, but that should not stop us from trying. I know of no one who ever regretted doing God's will. But plenty of people regret turning their backs on God.
Please read the rest of the chapter, and note in particular the following:
Rom 6:17-18 “But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.”
What was it that enabled them to become servants of righteousness?
Answer: "... ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered ..."
What is that form of teaching? What is taught that we must do in order to be saved -- hear the word, believe it, repent of our sins, confess our faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and be baptized into Christ. That is the form of teaching that was delivered unto them. Read Matt. 28:18 again -- that is the teaching that they were to deliver to all new disciples.
Of course, it does not stop there – there is still the Christian life, and this is also heavily referenced in the 6th chapter of Romans.
BAPTISM LESSON 23 – REVISIT OF ACTS 2:37
Consider first A.T. Robertson’s objection to the Acts 2:37 teaching that baptism is for the purpose of remission of sins.
“Repent ye (metanoêsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first. And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthêtô hekastos hûmôn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place… 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.” (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592).
Our Response
We suppose that if one holds the Calvinist belief that salvation cannot be lost, then the exact point at which a person is saved becomes a very important consideration. It is hard to believe that someone would have a change of heart and mind to the point that they would be saved, and then refuse to obey this simplest of the commands of the Lord. If this could happen, then would not that person be in rebellion and thus be lost? See Acts 8 for an example of someone (Simon the Sorcerer) who was saved and very shortly thereafter was in rebellion to God.
Impossible? Consider Acts 8:13-24: And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed. Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me."
This passage teaches that Simon was saved regardless if you believe in salvation before or after baptism. Verse 13 says he believed. Those who teach faith only cannot deny that he was saved. If not then can anyone have any assurance at all that they or anyone else saved? Note that when he is confronted by Peter with his sin, two major points are made:
(1) His sin has now made him lost “thy heart is not right with God … thou are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” What stronger or more definitive words were ever spoken?
(2) The remedy: repent and pray for forgiveness. Peter does not challenge his belief or his baptism. He was saved, now he is lost, and this is the remedy for that situation (see also 1 John 1 and 2).
The point that we are trying to make is that the command to be baptized is one that, if not followed, will lead one to be lost. It does not matter at what point God recognizes that a person is saved. A disregard for God’s command and the teaching of others to disregard it has the same consequences.
But lets look at it in more detail to see that the evidence is not that Peter was “urging baptism on them,” but that he was commanding it, because he was commanded to command it (Mt. 28:18). Consider the various versions to see what various teams of scholarly translators felt that this verse means in English.
Acts 2:38
And Peter (said) unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
ASV
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
KJV
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASB
38 Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASU
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NRSV
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
RSV
Peter replied, "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.
NIV
And Peter answered them, Repent (change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it) and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
AMP
38 And Peter replied, "Each one of you must turn from sin, return to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit.
TLB
38 Peter replied, "Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NLT
Why can't we just accept what it says? Amazing the excuses we can come up with when we want a way out.
BAPTISM LESSON 24 – OBJECTION BASED ON 1 COR. 1:17
The objection is often made that Paul’s words to the Corinthians: (1Cor.1:17) "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" indicate that baptism is of little consequence to salvation.
First of all, let's look at this from a very high level. Are those who teach this stating that we SHOULD NOT baptize? Is that their position? Is it wrong to baptize?
If so, why does your church baptize?
You cannot have it both ways. If baptism has nothing to do with salvation, and if it is wrong to teach new disciples that they should be baptized according to the examples that we have in the book of Acts, then what ARE they baptizing people for? Can they provide a scriptural basis for their practice? Some teach that they are being baptized into the local church -- WHERE can that be found in scripture?
Now let's deal with the passage itself ...1 Cor 1:10-18. Please read carefully ...
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and (that) there be no divisions among you; but (that) ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them (that are of the household) of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. 18 For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
It is clear that those who teach against baptism using this passage take verse 14 out of context in order to make the point that baptism is not involved in our salvation. Question: is this the message that PAUL was trying to convey? In doing so they are either ignorant or being blatantly dishonest -- and yet we hear this objection all the time.
If you read the entire context you will see that this is not at all what Paul was saying. Absolutely not. Were ANY of the Corinthian Christians not baptized? I think you agree from the context and from 1 Cor. 12:13 that they were ALL baptized. The subject here is not whether or not they should be baptized, but WHO did the baptizing. (Also see Acts 18 for the history of Paul’s stay at Corinth.)
The bible does not place any emphasis at all on WHO is to do the baptizing. The great commission (Mt. 28:18) places the responsibility to baptize on the same people who do the preaching or teaching. No one has to be "ordained" by a religious organization or anything like that to baptize someone.
So, let's walk through it:
- 10 – the issue. There was division in Corinth. They were following after men and dividing themselves over the men that they were following. Paul states that this is wrong -- that they should be united in their doctrine and even in their judgments.
- 11 – Paul gives evidence as to why he feels this way.
- 12 – Later we learn that Paul was just using these names as examples (1 Cor. 6:4). Note, that even stating that someone was "of Christ" was wrong if it was done in a spirit of division and contention.
- 13 – This verse indicates the motivation for the verses that follow. Read it carefully. Is baptism important? If not, why even bring the subject up???? Is it important just whose name we are baptized into? Paul certainly thought so, as did the Corinthians.
- 14-15 – why was Paul glad that he had not baptized too many of them? The answer is in these verses. It is NOT because baptism is unimportant! The all WERE baptized. It is just that Paul had not been the one to baptize them. He was glad of this so that they could not claim that they had been baptized into his (Paul's) name. It could be that in the first century someone who was baptized by an apostle would think he had some higher status. This would be a typical problem at Corinth as we see all of their problems with pride and worldliness. The message is clear – it is obedience to Christ that is important, NOT who baptizes you. Would you think you would be better of if you were baptized by the Pope? This is analogous to the message that Paul was trying to get them to see.
- 16 -- Paul obviously lost track of all who he baptized ... he has some second thoughts here -- this just further emphasizes the point – it does not matter WHO does the baptizing. The fact that he lost track of them reinforces this point. Why keep track? The important thing was that they WERE baptized, not who did it.
- 17 – this verse is a NOT ... BUT ... statement. (Please see the link; we will not consider this very common construct now. In summary, the NOT part of the statement cannot be taken literally in all cases.) If the “not” part of it is taken literally then this results in two conclusions: (1) it contradicts the great commission -- see Mt. 28:18; and (2) it would have Paul in sin for the people he DID baptize (see vs. 14 and 16). It is obvious that the strictly literal meaning of the clause "Christ sent me not to baptize" is not true. (Yet, this is how some are applying it.) Just as the literal meaning of "work not for the meat that perishes" in John 6:27 is not literally true. Both of these are NOT ... BUT ... constructs, and the meaning of them is that there is a great de-emphasis of the NOT part in favor of the BUT part. Of the two things that Paul was sent to do -- baptize and teach -- the teaching was by far the more important of the two. Anyone could baptize, but only an inspired apostle could deliver the fullness of the truth of the gospel at that point in time.
- 18 -- the "word of the cross" includes baptism. The fact that all of the Corinthians were baptized is ample evidence that Paul preached it as part of the word of the cross when he established that church (see Acts 18 for verification of this fact).
Let me illustrate with another example from the book of 1 Corinthians.
1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient.”
Are all things lawful? This is a common figure of speech called hyperbole. Paul is over-emphasizing to an obvious extreme in order to make a point. The key to understanding hyperbole is that is must be totally absurd when taken literally, so the hearer (reader) quickly discards the literal meaning in favor of the major point being made by the writer.
We use hyperbole all the time. Read the previous sentence again and you will see that hyperbole was used there; but you understood it perfectly. Obviously we don't do anything "all the time" (note the absurdity of taking this literally). We just say that we do it “all the time” to make the point that it is done very often and without even thinking.
The bible is not difficult to understand, but we have to apply the same rules to it that we apply to understanding any work of literature, or for that matter, our everyday conversation. Please correct those who would use 1 Cor. 1:17 as an attempt to prove that baptism is not a command of Jesus Christ -- we will give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they have not sufficiently studied the context, and that they are just accepting this as a common criticism of bible baptism.
Lesson 10. Thinking About Becoming a Christian?