BAPTISM
Its
Mode, its Meaning,
its
Madness
By
Jeff Paton
With all of the important issues than divides the Church of Christ, baptism is one of the most destructive. In some circles, membership is determined by the mode in which someone gets baptized. In other arenas, baptism and inclusion into the body of Christ becomes a requirement for salvation, and not just membership alone. If this issue is as important as many have made it to be, then we must give it an honest evaluation to see what impact the doctrine has on the matters of salvation, grace, and charity.
Are
we saved by faith, or faith and baptism? In this matter, some groups have fallen
from grace as many of the Galatians did. The apostle Paul wrote to people such
as these, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” And, “Are ye so foolish? Having
begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
Immersion
Baptism is Essential to Salvation
To
start the discussion on the subject of baptism, we will start with one of the
greatest heresies to have permeated the realm of Christian thought, which is
called Baptismal Regeneration; or in other words, you must be
baptized in order to be saved. No baptism by water, no salvation. To say that
salvation is hinged upon the amount of water, or by a certain mode, or its
application by a specially qualified person, is unequivocally not
the Gospel of Christ! Some have replaced the doctrine of salvation by grace
through faith in the work of Jesus Christ by adding personal works to the
equation. If these direct statements cause you offense because you believe that
water baptism is essential to your salvation, keep in mind that you are not the
first person to slip in the creek of baptismal waters. I too was hoodwinked by
this seductive doctrine early on in my walk with Christ. Thankfully, friends
were patient enough to walk me through an examination of the Scriptures as a
whole, which brought me to a deliverance from this error.
Throughout
this article, I hope to give the reader a general overview of many of the issues
that are raised by those who demand an exclusive mode of baptism. The first
issue that will be discussed is the imbalanced and heretical view of Baptismal
Regeneration. Baptismal Regeneration is the doctrine that teaches that
regeneration, or the new-birth, does not occur until the believer is properly
baptized into water, by the correct method. What this is saying is, if you have
not been baptized by immersion, you cannot be a born-again believer. You are
lost in your sins. The only way of salvation that is available to you is to obey
the “gospel” of immersion “for” the remission of sins.
As
you can probably see, this denies salvation to anyone that does not meet the
requirement of exclusive immersion baptism. This would exclude that vast
majority of those believers that are saved by faith, not only today, but
throughout all of history. It emphatically denies that certain evangelists, such
as John and Charles Wesley, were lost and heathen men. The irony is, those whom
God has used in what is perhaps the greatest revival since Pentecost, according
to the Baptismal Regenerationists, were not Christians!
This
accusation should be given the utmost attention, for if what they say concerning
baptism is true, then the eternal salvation of mankind is at stake! Many that
believe that they are Christians, whose lives have been radically changed
through faith, have somehow been deceived into believing that God has done this
work, and that they are part of the Body of Christ apart from exclusive baptism
by immersion! If immersion baptism is essential to salvation, then what most
people believe to be the Gospel – salvation by grace through faith, and not of
works – is a lie, a false and dangerous “gospel.” This is an important
topic indeed! Salvation hinges upon the very issue of baptism, and not upon
Christ, and His atonement and grace!
To
this statement, the Baptismal Regenerationist would heartily disagree. They
would say that they believe that it is all of grace. But grace is applied
through obedience to the gospel, which demands baptism by immersion! Hebrews 5:9
takes on this meaning when it says, “he became the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him.” No obedience, no salvation. God commands that we
be baptized; so then, God must demand that in order to be saved, we must obey
and be baptized!
This
seems to follow along the lines of logic, but fails to see that the Scriptures
do not say that we are saved by logic, but by what the Bible says that we must
do in order to be saved. This is the real issue. Not logical arguments, but a
reliance on the whole of Scripture to define how people are saved in the Gospel
dispensation.
The
concept of obedience and baptism will be discussed at the conclusion of the
article. This will not be ignored, but must be put into the context of certain
facts concerning grace, the Gospel, and the Word of God.
Let’s
start with just a few of the verses that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration
uses to add water baptism to the salvation formula.
One
of the key verses for the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration is in John 3:5. The
emphasis is put upon the words, “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This seems to say it all for
those that believe that water will supplement the deficiency of the work of
Christ. They claim that to be saved, we must be regenerated by water baptism in
order to receive the baptism of the Spirit. This however misses some important
details. First of all, the passage separates the event of being born of water
and being born of the Spirit. They are not the same thing, which baptismal
regeneration implies. Secondly, baptism is not even mentioned in the context of
this passage. The passage is not talking about baptism at all! Lets take a brief
look to see what the passage does say.
The
question Nicodemus asked was, “How can a man be born again when he is old? Can
he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? “Jesus
answered.” Notice that Jesus is answering the question that Nicodemus asked,
which was “how he could return again to his mothers womb.” Jesus does not go
off on a tangent by talking about baptism by immersion. In fact, He does not do
anything other than answer the direct question of Nicodemus.
Jesus answered his question very directly saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is clear from the passage that Nicodemus thought that Jesus was talking about a PHYSICAL rebirth. Jesus responded to his misconception by saying that this is not a physical birth (mother's water) but a SPIRITUAL birth.
If this was talking about water baptism as a requirement for being born-again, you would think that it would be reinforced somewhere in the context of Jesus' speaking. But we find the exact opposite! Jesus says in verse 12 that "if I told you EARTHLY THINGS, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?"
John chapter three is the context in which the interaction of Jesus and Nicodemus takes place. Just before this we read the Gospel is that, "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Notice that there is not a singular reference to baptism concerning salvation in this verse, or any baptism/salvation connection in the whole chapter! The Gospel is not found in water, but upon faith! "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
It is a distortion of the Gospel, and the straightforward meaning of the context, to make this passage say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Just because water is used in the passage, it is no reason to force the concept of baptism upon it!
The
bedrock verse for Baptismal Regeneration is Acts 2:38. The whole idea of how
Bible verses concerning salvation, purification, washing, and water, are to be
interpreted, hinges upon their doctrinal dogmatism upon this single verse. They
see this as the clearest, and most straightforward presentation of the gospel
message in all of the Scripture.
“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.”
By
isolating this, and ignoring the rest of Scripture on the subject, we see that
they come up with a gospel formula on their own. Repentance…. Baptism
“for” the remission of sins…. Only then does one receive the Holy Ghost.
Where
we can get off track on this issue is by ignoring the whole of what Scripture
says on the issue, and isolating any individual verse from the greater context
of all Scripture. Keep in mind that the vast majority of passages concerning
salvation in Scripture do not even contain the slightest reference to baptism.
All salvation passages connect faith, or belief, as the means by which salvation
is conferred upon individuals, but relatively few of them mention baptism. This
begs the question. Why should we blindly accept that baptism is
essential to salvation in full defiance of hundreds of passages to the contrary
that teach that we are saved by faith, without baptism? It is impossible to
defy the conclusion that if through faith, one person can be saved without
water baptism, then everybody can! The
fact that in some salvation passages we see a reference to baptism is
significant, and must be addressed. Further discussion upon this significance
will be shown later on when we consider the usage of baptism in the Early
Church. For now, it is sufficient enough to acknowledge that there are passages
that speak of the two together. The point is, that in view of the whole of
Scripture, this significance is minor. The minority of passages do not override
the majority. Either side must not ignore the presence of the other, but we must
look at it holistically; not by pitting one passage against another.
The
Baptismal Regenerationist argues fiercely that Acts 2:38 states that Peter
presents the Gospel to include immersion baptism. The people, pricked in
their hearts cried out, "what must we do to be saved?"
Peter’s answer to their question is: “Repent, and be baptized every one of
you for the remission of sins.” “That is “plain as day” as
to what one must “do” in order to be saved,” they would say.
Isolating the passage, as they would do, we see that the argument from logic
seems quite formidable. But what of the passages that omit any such injunction
to water baptism? Are we not promised that if we “call upon the name of the
Lord” we “shalt be saved.”? What are we to say about salvation when we are
told that we are “saved by grace though faith; and that not of ourselves: it
is the gift of God: Not of works, (baptism, church attendance, tithing, etc.)
lest any man should boast.”? Does one principle on either side void the
meaning in the other? This cannot be so! There must be a reasonable way to put
these things together.
Unfortunately,
the most of us are restricted to the poverty of the English language. In doing
so, we are robbed at times of the rich and exacting connections that are made in
the original Greek. We are also at a loss at times to find the best word for
certain translations. Am I saying that the traditional translation for Acts 2:38
is in error? No I am not. The trouble is at times that when translating a
meaning for a word, exegetical experts like to translate on a word for word
basis. What this means is, they pick the best single English word
to replace the meaning of the singular Greek word in the passage.
What happens here are that some Greek words would be better translated as
several words to arrive at the best understanding of the passage in English.
“For” the remission of sins is by far the best single word
translation as is proven by its popularity in most translations.
Even
in the English usage we can see there are different meanings as to how the word
"for" is used and applied. This we will discuss later on in our
discussion. Many read into this passage that the word for means
“purpose of ” or “in order to obtain.” While this is a just
interpretation that can be used in many cases, it is cannot be here. There are
many options that can be used for the Greek word eis in this passage,
especially ones that do not make this passage contradict hundreds of other
Scriptures. It would be a better multiple word translation to interpret the
meaning of eis as, “on account of,” “because of
” (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32), “in accordance ”or “with
reference to," the remission of sins. This
would be more appropriate since this would keep in harmony with the passages
that assert that we are saved by faith and not by any works. (See
Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
3:1208
Two bits of misinformation are used in an attempt to salvage baptism as a requirement for salvation. First, the misnomer that some have propagated, " eis never means "because of." This is emphatically proven wrong by the use of eis in Matt. 12:41. The other false claim is, "the word "eis" never looks backwards." Once again, this is proven to be patently false according to Matt. 12:41. Look at the example of Scripture they say never "looks backwards." " My children are with me in (eis) bed." Luke 11:7. They were already with him in bed, there is not any reference to the future. The argument which claims that eis in Acts 2:38 can only mean that baptism is required for salvation, is clearly a false, and is either propagated out of ignorance, or by deliberate deception. It only takes one example to prove their assertion is false!
The argument is made that the term cannot be used as "reference to," or "with reference to." In Romans 6: 3 we read, "that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ were baptized into (eis) his death..." 1 Corinthians 10: 2, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "And that "baptized unto Moses" again uses the little preposition eis, so the Bible says, "baptized eis Jesus Christ," " baptized eis his death," and "baptized eis Moses." So if baptism puts the penitent sinner into Christ, then all the nation of Israel were put into Moses. If the one is literally put into, then the other is literally put into." False Doctrines, John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Page 92. The meaning of eis is clearly used as a term of being "in reference to"; a legitimate meaning of the word. So to argue that eis cannot mean "reference to" or "with reference to" in many passages of Scripture, and it cannot hold the same meaning in Acts 2:38, is to dodge reality.
"In reference to" can
be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here
are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable
use of the word. We can "take an
aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our
work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache
anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of
"because" or "on account of" makes
more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins
does in Acts 2:38.
We
are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14,
Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy
cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to
obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper
already had it!
Another illustration is as follows:
1. I phoned the Doctor for (in order to) some medicine.
2. I phoned the Doctor for (in behalf of) my child.
3. I phoned the Doctor for (on account of) my sickness.
4. I phoned the Doctor for (with respect to) the bill he sent. (Bob Ross, Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Remission, pp.45-48 , Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX, 1987)
Just
as English translation does not lock us into the idea that baptism is a
prerequisite for salvation, the English does not assert or demand which of the
meanings of "eis" we should choose. The laws of hermeneutics
however, demand that “on account of the remission of sins” is
the only Scripturally consistent translation to consider.
But
if the argument from Scripture consistency and the use of English wording is not
enough to convince you, then we should look at the clarity of the Greek.
Bob
Ross in his book, Acts
2:38 and Baptismal Remission, pp.45-48 (Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX,
1987),
makes some important points about this verse and its three clauses:
"The
American Standard Version (1901) renders Acts 2:38 as follows: 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.
"...
there are three clauses in this sentence, and the modifying phrases must stand
in their respective, individual clauses, according to the rules of grammar.
Consequently, if 'repent' is in a distinct clause from 'be baptized ' the
modifying phrase "for the remission of sin" cannot modify both
'repent' and 'be baptized'
"The three clauses are --
(1) 'Repent
ye:'
'ye'
-- subject, second person plural number.
'Repent' -- verb, second person plural number, aorist imperative active
voice.
(2)
'be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of
sins:'
“every
one of you” – third person, singular number.
'be
baptized' -- verb, third person singular number, aorist passive
imperative voice.
“unto
the remission of your sins” – modifying phrase.
(3)
'ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:'
'ye'
-- subject, second person plural number.
'shall
receive' -- verb, second person plural number, future, indicative voice.
'the
gift of the Holy Spirit' -- direct object of verb.
"For
the claims of Campbellism (Baptismal
Regeneration) to
be upheld, the first and second clauses would have to be connected so as to
allow 'for the remission of sins' to modify both 'repent' and 'be baptized.'
However, this presents the following grammatical problem: In the first
clause, the person and number of the verb 'repent' do not agree with the verb
'be baptized' in the second clause. 'Repent' is second person plural number; 'be
baptized' is third person singular number.
"It
is a rule of Greek grammar, as it is in English, that the verb agrees with its
subject in person and number:"
"Person is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is
speaking (first person), is being spoken to (second person), or is being spoken
of (third person) ...
"Number
is the quality of verbs which indicates whether the subject is singular or
plural" Ray
Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950),
p.12:
"If
the subject of a verb is the person or the group of persons speaking, the verb
is in the first person. If the subject of a verb is the person or group of
persons spoken to, the verb is in the second person. If the subject of a verb is
the person or the thing or the group spoken of, the verb is the third
person" Let's
Study Greek by Clarence B. Hale (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 9:
"These
quotations from 'standard' Greek grammars express the simple fact that subjects
and verbs agree with one another.
"It
is evident, then, that repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38 cannot be combined so
as to have both modified by the phrase, 'for the remission of sins.' The proper
grammatical construction of the sentence forbids it.
To express this graphically, I enclose
the following:
| Repent ye,
--------------------->
2nd person |
ye shall receive
------------------------------>
2nd person |
the gift of the Holy
Spirit
object of 2nd person |
|
All of you repent and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit |
||
| every one of you
--------------->
3rd person |
be baptized
----------------------------------->
3rd person |
unto the remission of
sins
object of third person |
|
Every one of you (who repented and received the Holy Spirit) be baptized because the remission of sins. (This
is implied by verse 41. “Then they that received his word were
baptized."
|
The
point that is obvious in the Greek is that the idea of repentance and the
reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate action or event from the
command to the persons to whom the baptism “for” the remission of sins is
addressed. As much some may wish, we cannot deny the obvious separation given in
the Greek and place the two events together as one little tight
package. It is logical to think that the third person exhortation to be baptized
is addressed to those within the third person plural group, those that were
exhorted to repent and receive the Holy Spirit. It would be rightfully assumed
that they had already possessed the Holy Spirit and and salvation, and were
candidates for baptism, therefore they were baptized in "reference to"
the remission of sins. They were saved before they were baptized.
But some may baulk at the idea that "because" holds any authority as its meaning. What do the Greek experts think?
"Dana and Mantly in their excellent treatment of the Greek prepositions based upon the papyri findings, give as as one of the uses of the word as "because of." Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. 49502. (vol. 3:77).
Wuest translates as follows, "and let each one of you be baptized upon the ground of your confession of belief in the sum total of all that Jesus Christ is in His glorious Person, this baptismal testimony being in relation to the fact that your sins have been put away..." The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, Kenneth Wuest, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. 49502. Page 276.
Robertson remarks, "And let each one of you be baptized." "Change of number from plural to singular and person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve." (vol. 3:34). "Unto the remission of your sins... This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology... It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples (of eis) where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc." (3:35). "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 forgiveness of sins already received." (3:36). Word Pictures In The New Testament, A.T. Robertson, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tn. 1930.
I will give one last example from the use of language to show how the rigid Baptismal Regenerationists' assertion that eis can only mean "for" or "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, is proven to be impossible. They must be dogmatic about it, or the whole theological house of cards they have built upon it will come tumbling down at the slightest gust from the wind of truth. But what if we take their street-corner linguistic approach and apply it to Matthew 3:11? "I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance..." Where does our rigid method of folk linguistics lead us with this passage? If it is true that one must be baptized "in order to" receive remission of sins, it is inevitably true that you must be baptized "in order to" repent! The logic is irresistible! You must be baptized "in order to" repent! We have it in Scripture, you cannot repent until you are baptized! But John disagrees; he places repentance as the condition of baptism. It is impossible that one must repent before they are baptized, and at the same time cannot repent until after they are baptized. Both cannot be true. The same can be said about the rigid use of eis in Acts 2:38. It cannot be true that we are said to be saved by grace through faith in innumerable passages, and only through water baptism in a few; and only if we apply a failed "it can only mean one thing" approach to the meaning of eis that every credible linguist, and the inspired Scriptures emphatically deny. It cannot be denied that the use of language admits that Acts 2:38 can mean that you must be baptized in order to be saved. It also cannot be denied that eis in Acts 2:38, and everywhere else in Scripture, can have more than one limited meaning. Weighed out against the wealth of Scripture to the contrary of Baptismal Regeneration, one can defy logic, linguistics, and Scriptural consistency, and hold tenaciously to their pet theory; but they will not have truth or the Gospel.
If Acts 2:38 "is the Gospel" as many Baptismal Regenerationists claim (their interpretation of it), they must scratch their heads in amazement as to how the Christians of the first 200 years missed it! It is no doubt that the Early Church preached the Gospel. The surviving writings that we have today shows how steeped in Scripture they were in their letters. If this passage were the "Gospel in a nutshell," then why didn't the Early Church writers pull it out of their selective arsenal of Scriptures to preach the Gospel? Why were they not as dazzled and centered on this singular passage as the modern day "Restorationists" are? Could it be that those steeped in the language, the culture, the teachings of the apostles, actually understood the passage, that it didn't put baptism as the cause of salvation? I have never heard a rational explanation that would account for the silence of the Early Church concerning the neglect of this so-called perfect, "Gospel in a nutshell"!
The
proponents of this baptismal regeneration doctrine are quick to state the first
half of the verse while neglecting the latter half, which says, “ but he that
believeth not shall be damned.” Notice that the passage is clear that
believing and being baptized is not the same thing. The fact that those who do
not believe shall be damned clearly makes no reference to baptism. Their lack of
faith is the cause of their doom. The first half of the passage talks of
salvation by faith, and baptism because they are saved. My friend,
if you baptize a sinner, all you get is a wet sinner! If you baptize a Christian
you have a testimony! Getting wet would do absolutely nothing for the one who is
not already saved by faith. People get baptized because they believe and
are already saved. It is a testimony of the abandonment of their old life and a
proclamation of the new.
THE
LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION
If
you make baptism a requirement of Salvation, then you cause Scripture to
contradict Scripture. If you must be baptized to be saved, why
does the Scripture say we are:
1.
Saved by grace through faith, not of works, which would
include baptism! (Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 2:8-9;
Acts 15:8-9).
2. Saved
by faith without works, including baptism! (Rom.
4:1-25; 5:1; Gal. 3:19-29).
3. Saved
by faith in the blood of Jesus, not faith in
water! (Matt. 26:28; Eph 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 1 Jn. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; 1 Pet. 1:18-23).
4. Saved
by calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:9-13).
5. Saved
by believing on Jesus
(John 3:16-18; 26; Acts 10:43; 13:38-40; 16:31; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 1:21). Not
one time is baptism referred to as necessary to gain salvation in
ANY of these passages!
THE
BIBLICAL ORDER OF SALVATION
If
one example can be found in the Scripture that someone was saved before they
were baptized, or without baptism, then the heretical theory of baptismal
regeneration has been proven false! For this, we have several examples:
1.
The thief on the cross. Without a
doubt was clearly saved without water baptism! Mark 14:30.
2. Paul was converted, filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized with water. Acts 9:17-18.
3.
Cornelius and his household. Believed, and were immediately baptized with
the Spirit
Some
will claim that 1 Peter 3:21, "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us," makes water baptism “a must for salvation.”
If you were to read it in its context, you would not come up with the conclusion
that water baptism is essential for salvation.” 1 Peter 3:20,21, it
says, “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. The LIKE FIGURE whereunto even baptism
doth also save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.”
Baptism
is mentioned here only as a FIGURE, that is, a shadow, symbol, or picture
of salvation. Baptism does not save; it declares salvation. It was as if God
knew that this passage would be
misused that He ended the verse with “(not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.)”
Water baptism does not put away the filth of the old carnal nature, but
simply gives us a good conscience toward God.
Baptismal
Regeneration:
2. It reduces the efficacy of the blood of Christ to the physical element of water. (Those in the frozen north, or arid desert where there is barely enough water for survival, would be denied salvation because of lack of water).
3. Argues that baptism is essential to the Gospel. However, Paul did not exhort people to believe in the “water god.” In fact, he fought hard to remove the peoples trust in their personal works for salvation, including trusting in baptism. He said that God did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. (1 Cor. 1:14.) Certainly, it was Paul’s mission to get people saved, and they could only be saved through the Gospel. If baptism were integral to the Gospel, then Paul would have been sent to baptize. By Paul’s clear statement, he made it clear that the Gospel had nothing to do with baptism! To Paul, the Gospel is not connected to baptism!
We should do the same by not confusing regeneration with baptism!
Immersion
Baptism is Not
Essential to Salvation
(But
it is Essential to Church Membership)
These difficulties are real. I know that they are treated lightly, and laughed at as trifling; but this does not remove them. The argument is, that either God has enjoined a duty to be perpetually and universally binding, which, for a large portion of the year, is impractical, burdensome, or dangerous for millions of the race, or else he has not enjoined immersion as the exclusive mode of baptism. The Gospel comes to all, in every age, in every condition, in the polar snows or the burning sands, in arid wastes or mountain fastnesses, in palace or hospital, in the air of freedom or within prison walls; and it comes with all its comforts and helps, and in perfect adaptation to all. But, tested by this rule, exclusive immersion is another system.
S.M.
Merrill
It
seems that there has been an inordinate amount of debate throughout the history
of Christianity over this issue of baptism. To the outsider, it seems like there
is much ado over how a Christian should get wet! Since the vast majority of
those who claim the name of “Christian” do not believe that baptism has
anything to do with salvation, it seems ridiculous that we should expend so much
energy over such a non-essential issue.
With
this in view, I must explain the reason for this portion of this paper. The
first reason is that there are many groups who dogmatically insist on immersion
baptism as if it were the most critical of doctrines. They unknowingly force
their own private interpretation, and put their own twist upon verses that do
not assert what they try to make them mean.
Following
the logical path of their assumptions, we will find that it only leads us to
make the Bible a book of absurdities; and this must be corrected. Secondly, The
interest of truth compels me to remove the false assertions about the mode of
baptism, which many use as a whipping stick and a means to stigmatize fellow
believers as disobedient or sub-standard Christians. We certainly cannot believe
that Jesus would have treated believers as step-children because of the mode in
which they got wet. It is clear that this attitude divides and is not healthy
for the Church.
An
illustration of this inordinate obsession over baptism can be found in the Autobiography
of Peter Cartwright. Cartwright, a Methodist evangelist, was one of the
pioneer preachers at the dawn of our nations birth. He preached with great
success in new territories such as Kentucky and Tennessee. Since he traveled on
a circuit from town to town, he only returned to each place about once a month.
He tells us that the Baptists would follow behind his evangelistic successes and
engage in the act of sheep stealing.
After
one occasion, one of his members chased him down, explained what was happening,
and urged him to turn back toward town. This he did.
“There
was a fine creek running near the old church. The preachers directed all us all
to appear next morning at nine o’clock, with a change of apparel, to be
baptized.” “At the appointed hour we all met at the creek, but I took no
change of apparel. I had been baptized, and I did not intend to abjure my
baptism.” “ The preachers appeared. One of them sang and prayed, then gave
us an exhortation, and bade us to come forward.”
Knowing
that it was essential that he should go first, Cartwright said, “I wish to
join the Baptist Church if I can come with a good conscience. I have been
baptized, and my conscience is perfectly satisfied with it, and I cannot submit
to be re-baptized. Can I come to your Church on these terms?”
“When
were you baptized?” he asked.
“Years
gone by,” I replied.
“But
how was it done? Who baptized you?” was the next inquiry.
“By
one of the best preachers the Lord ever made.”
“Was
it done by sprinkling?”
“Yes,
sir.”
“That
was no baptism at all.”
I
replied, “The Scriptures say that baptism is not the putting away the filth of
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience, and my conscience is perfectly
satisfied with my baptism, and your conscience has nothing to do with it.”
“Well,”
said he, “it is contrary to our faith and order to let you come into the
Baptist Church in that way. We cannot do it.”
“Your
faith and order must be wrong. The Church has heard my experience, and
pronounced it good; and you believe that I am a Christian, and cannot fall away
as to be finally lost. What am I to do? Are you going to keep me out of the
Church, bleating round the walls like a lost sheep in a gang by myself? Brother
M_____, you must receive me into the Church. I have fully made up my mind to
join you on these terms; now, will you let me come into the Church?”
I cast a look around the crowd, and saw they were enlisted in my favor.
Then
one of Peter Cartwright’s converts spoke up and said,
“Brother M_____, are you going to reject Brother Cartwright, and not
receive him into the Church?”
“
I cannot receive him, ” said Brother M_____.
“Well,
if Brother Cartwright, who has been the means, in the hand of God, of my
conversion, and the saving of so many precious souls, cannot come into the
Church I cannot and will not join it. “Nor I,” said his wife; “Nor I,”
“Nor I;” and thus it went round, until every one of my twenty-three young
converts filed off.....The congregation saw the absurdity, and more and more
were interested in my favor.
Cartwright
was correct in referring to 1 Peter 3:20, 21, which clearly sets the whole
purpose of baptism into its proper perspective. Baptism is a mere figure; it
declares salvation. It is “(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God.)” If these
preachers really believed that we are saved by faith and not by works,
how could they deny a Christian access into the fellowship of God? This friend
is pure hypocrisy! Would you
truly believe that Christ would keep a believer out of the Church over the
manner in which they were baptized?
If
baptism is not a salvation issue, why do Christians separate their fellowship
over it? Most Christians would admit that the Scriptures appeal to the unity of
believers, but yet, some deny membership into the body of the local Church over
the issue of baptism. To say that baptism is not a salvation issue is to say
that a Believer is incorporated into the Body of Christ upon the reception of
the new-birth. To admit this is to say that the believer, baptized or not, is
already a member of the Body of Christ; the Church. We “say” that they are
saved; yet we bar them from the fellowship of believers. You see, it is
tantamount to saying that they are not saved, or they do not have a “right”
to be included in the Body of Christ on earth, even though they are already part
of that Body in the mind of God. God includes them, and we stand in judgment.
How can we say this is right? How can we say that the one who is incorporated
into the Body of the Church by the atonement of Christ is unworthy of membership
within our local body? To do so is not only to stand in judgment of the
believer, but it is also tantamount to standing in judgment of God’s
declaration of that status of that believer in His kingdom! God says they are
worthy; “Churches” say they are not.
The
previous example shows the impracticality of pushing the mode of baptism too
far. What I will now show is how the misapplication of baptism in certain
portions of Scripture will lead us down the road of contradiction. The
Scriptures do not fight with themselves!
One
of the favorite passages for the Immersionist is Romans 6:4. “Therefore we are
all buried with him by baptism into death.” This proves that we must be
buried under the water in order to be baptized! Doesn’t it? This seems
logical but it is hopelessly flawed. To argue that the word “buried” demands
a literal burial in water ignores that we must interpret the whole verse just as
literally. Keep in mind, if we demand that it is a literal burial, then,
it must be a literal death! And if the burial must be taken
literally, then so must the crucifixion! This very fact demands that the
passage is not talking about water
baptism, but spiritual baptism. Certainly water baptism cannot put us into his
death. Neither can water baptism free us from the sins of the flesh, but the
very baptism that Paul speaks of is a spiritual baptism.
Another
observation about this passage that I want to make clear is that there is not a
lake, a pond, a baptismal, or stream mentioned in the entire passage. In fact, there
is not one drop of water in this passage! This chapter has nothing to do
with water baptism at all! In verse 3 we are told specifically what we
are baptized into; Jesus Christ!
“
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?” If Paul
meant water instead of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t he have said so?
This is a spiritual baptism, in which we identify with the death of Christ. This
is the same spiritual baptism Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 12:13, where he says,
“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”
For
those who demand that these references are speaking about immersion or water
baptism, and still claim that we saved by grace, they have an exegetical
problem. In Romans 6:5, we are told of this baptism that, “For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection.” What if we have not been immersed
in water baptism? The promise of being resurrected is only connected to those
who are “planted together in the likeness of his death,” and to them alone!
Are we going to follow the conclusion that you must be immersed in water in
order to be saved? The Scriptures deny such heresy, as does the context of this
passage.
It is also astonishing to see the dogmatism of some, that this establishes the Christian "mode" of water baptism. "Burial, burial! You must go under the water in order to be buried; just as Jesus was buried!" I find it amusing to ask such self-proclaimed "literalists," "where it is stated that Jesus was ever under anything in His burial?" Jesus was buried in a tomb, above ground. No imagery of going "under" water can symbolize the death of Christ, for Jesus never went "under" anything in His burial! Where will this playing fast and loose with the facts, and the hypocritical "pick-and-choose" literalism of the immersionists lead us?
In Colossians 2:11-12, we are told, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Notice that this passage is also spiritual, for this circumcision is done without hands, and that by this baptism, we are raised through the faith of the operation of God. Nothing is said about any water in the process, so why do some force it into the passage? If we are to be literal and demand immersion in water at the same time, we must insist that the passage demands that the person being baptized by immersion must remain under the water until they are raised through faith in the day of their resurrection! It is either a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, or it is a literal death, burial, and resurrection. You cannot demand literalism of the passage at one point, and then deny it at another, when it it all within the same context! The literalism that denies the spiritual message, and demands baptism by immersion in water from these passages, must also demand that the only saved Christians, are drowned Christians!
Paul
writes, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” He is calling for
grace among believers. He hopes to incite unity among those who differ in the
non-essentials of the Christian religion. In this passage Paul addresses the
disputes between converts that came from Judaism, but what would he say to us
today about the divisiveness of baptismal modes among those of us that believe
we are saved by faith? In this we can only speculate, but I believe that he
would have appealed to grace.
We
must reject any uncharitable notion, whether stated or implied, that all other
denominations are to be considered un-baptized just because they are
un-immersed, and are therefore in willful disobedience to God. We should not use
baptism as a means to bar believers from membership or the Lord’s Table.
Obedience to the command is what matters – not the mode. For those who demand
an immersion only policy, this is the unfortunate result of their doctrinal
bias.
Since
there are those within the Christian fold that put such a huge emphasis upon
this issue of baptism, I find it necessary to give an honest review of the
claims that are made. The reason such a review is important is that many make it
an issue of fellowship and as a reason to judge others spirituality and fidelity
to the word of God.
In
1837, the Baptist denomination withdrew from the American Bible Society and
formed their own institution for the purpose of translating and circulating the
word of life. They called this new society The American and Foreign Bible
Society. The cause of their separation from one society and the creation of
a new one was over this issue of baptism. A Baptist missionary in India sent an
application to the American Bible Society for a new translation of the New
Testament in the Bengali language, but it was refused on the grounds that the
Greek words BAPTISO, and BAPTISMA, were not translated exclusively
as immerse.
The
reason for this refusal was that it was the policy of the American Bible Society
that they produce Scriptures that are “without note or comment” and that
foreign translations “coincide with English Versions in common use.” This
was done in order that all religious denominations might be able to use it. This
brought sharp criticism from the new Baptist society president who said,
“Among the errors and frauds which have marked the rise and progress of the
Papal hierarchy, handling the word of the Lord deceitfully is not the least. To
keep back any part of the price; to add to or take away from the words of the
book, is a crime of no questionable character.” They stated their purpose as
being, “to promote the circulation of faithful versions of the sacred
Scriptures.” And, “It shall be the object of this society to encourage the
production and circulation of complete translations of the Holy
Scriptures…. it being always understood, that the words relating to the
ordinance of BAPTISM shall be translated by terms signifying
IMMERSION.”
“Our brethren (the Baptists) consider the course adopted by Bible
societies in three quarters of the globe as an UNHOLY LEAGUE to suppress a
part of the eternal truth of God.”
These
are serious charges that deserve to be examined to see if they are true. Since
there are no English versions that translate BAPTIZO as immerse, are we to
believe that Greek scholars and translators all throughout history are part of
an UNHOLY LEAGUE? If they were that corrupt, why would they have any interest in
the translation process at all? Can we suppose that they translated against
clear meanings and principles of word usage in order to purposely suppress
part of the eternal truth of God, especially with the ominous warnings of
Scripture concerning tampering with the word of God? (Rev. 22:18-19.) Risking
the condemnation of a holy God over how you translate how someone gets wet in
baptism is not something any reasonable person would do without a solid reason
to do so. This argument that these translators were willfully suppressing the
truth does not add up!
What
about the assertion that BAPTIZO always means immerse? Those that
claim this refer to myriad's of resources that validate their position that the
term means to dip, immerse, plunge, bathe, wash, but never to “pour”
or “sprinkle.” With the vast number of authoritative sources, how could
anybody ever claim that there are optional modes?
The
first reason is that when most of these resources were written, they were under
the misconception that the Bible was written in classical Greek, but it was not.
It is accepted today that through research, we know that the Bible was written
in koine (common) Greek. It is like comparing “proper” English with
“American” English. They are similar, but they are not the same. If someone
were to write a Gospel in America, using modern terminology, they may say,
“Jesus is bad!” Now, in proper English, we would say that this is saying
that Jesus is not good. But in modern American terminology, this means that
Jesus is “very good.” The bottom line is not what the classical Greek
meaning is as much as what did the common Greek understanding of that day take
it to mean. An example of this is the word LOGOS, which in classical Greek means
word or speech. In the New Testament however, the context tells us that in the
gospel of John, it means Jesus our Lord.
We
can grasp the understanding of the word BAPTIZO by the contextual clues in the
passages in which it is used, and by observing its use in the early Church. In
Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance...he (Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” This was a
foreshadowing of the day of Pentecost, which is recorded in Acts chapter two. It
says that they were all baptized with the Holy Ghost, and then we
are clearly told the mode in which the baptism took place. It is revealed that
the Holy Ghost was poured out; in fact, it could not have been
done any other way if it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, which he
plainly says that the Spirit would be poured out upon them. It is
clear by these passages that there is no way to confuse that baptism is by
immersion and not by pouring. In fact, since this is a fulfillment of the
prophecy of John the Baptist, (Luke 3:16) there is a strong probability that he
baptized by pouring too!
In
Acts 11:15, 16 we have BAPTIZO used again in speaking of Cornelius and his
household. The context proves that it was done by pouring since Peter makes
reference to the Day of Pentecost saying, “as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost
fell upon them, as on us in the beginning.” Here we have
another instance where the word does not mean immerse; it means to pour, and yet
Peter calls it baptism.
The word BAPTIZO is used again in 1 Corinthians 10:2 by the apostle Paul. Speaking about the event of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea he says, “and they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” It is clear that this cannot mean immersion since we are told that the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on their left. We are told that they went over on dry ground. It is simply impossible to be immersed in water and still have dry feet! They were baptized, but it was done by a different mode, sprinkling. Paul says that they were under the cloud in the sea. This is another example of why baptism cannot mean exclusively immersion. Just remember, that listening to God and obeying Him saved the Israelites, and it was the Egyptians that got all wet!
BAPTIZO
is also in the New Testament under the term of washing. In Hebrews 9:10 we are
told, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings
(BAPTIZO) and
Another
example where BAPTIZO is used, but immersion makes the passage to be an
absurdity is Mark 7:4 , “And when they come from the market, except they wash,
they eat not. And many other things
there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (BAPTIZO) of
their cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables.” This BAPTIZO was to be done
every time they come from the market. Can you see the absurdity finding enough
water to immerse a table several times a day, or even once a day? It was clearly
a ceremonial cleaning, a washing, and not an immersion.
Luke
11:38, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed
(BAPTIZO) before dinner.” It
says that the Pharisee marveled because he did not baptize before dinner! No
immersion before dinner? This interpretation is absurd! Any reasonable person
would admit that the definition of Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 should be washing and
not immersion!
This
brings us to the question as to what is the best way to define baptism? The key
to this answer is to be found in the one word that will fit into every instance
of the term BAPTIZO. That is the meaning of wash, to cleanse,
to purify. It is clear that the New Testament does not
lock us into a singular mode in which this BAPTIZO is to be performed. What is
important is that the action of cleansing takes
place and not so much the mode. If the
Biblically consistent definition of cleansing is considered, then it
matters little as to which mode someone uses.
BAPTIZO
is a religious term which does not mean to dip, immerse, sprinkle, or pour, or
any other external action, but it is just a religious term, which means to
purify or to cleanse. This application works in every instance where the New
Testament uses the term BAPTIZO. To center on the truth that purification and
cleansing is the proper emphasis
1
Peter 3:20-21, tells us that “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth now
save us…not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer
of a good conscience towards God.” My friend, does baptism by
immersion give you a good conscience towards God? Then be immersed! Does
sprinkling or pouring give you a good conscience towards God? Then by all means,
choose the one that gives you a good conscience! Let no man judge your
conscience or your baptism because of his preference and conviction for a
certain mode!
I
believe the Scriptural position is that there is no command to dip or immerse in
the New Testament, but solely a command to purify. From this it follows:
1.
Those other denominations should not be counted as un-baptized, even
though they are un-immersed.
2.
They are not to be accused of substituting human forms of baptism in
place of a
3. In light of this, there is no justifiable reason to exclude them from membership or the Table of the Lord.
4.
Those that say that the term BAPTIZO does not mean exclusively to
“dip” or
In
the Catacombs at Rome there are many drawings to be found, which picture
Christian baptism either by pouring or by sprinkling. There is not a singular
picture in the Catacombs of baptism by immersion!
In
the chapter entitled “Immersion Baptism is Not
Essential to Salvation (But it is Essential to Church Membership),” we
covered the misconception that the Scriptures are always speaking of immersion
in water when it speaks of baptism. We saw that the passages used to justify a
burial in baptism make reference to a spiritual baptism by the Spirit into
Christ, and not water baptism.
Our
last chapter sought to expose the propaganda and misinformation that is used to
try to convince us that the Greek word BAPTIZO always means
to immerse. We showed that the New Testament usage of the word defies such a
narrow definition.
In
this chapter we will examine some of the remaining verses that Immersionists
claim to prove their position. As you read the argument, please remember that we
have taken the position already that states that all modes of baptism are
valid. We continue to investigate the passages that allegedly defend this idea
of exclusive immersion baptism.
Jesus
went down into the water, and came straightway up out of the
water.
In
an overly simplistic way, this seems to answer the question of what mode of
baptism Jesus participated in. This is similar to the error they make from the
Greek word BAPTIZO; they demand that is only one Scriptural meaning out of the
word. They posit that the Greek words, APO, from, and EIS, into,
proves that Jesus went down into the water by immersion,
and then he came up out of the water. They see this as decisive.
The Greek however, is not clearly as one-sided in their favor as they may have
hoped.
The
word EIS, can mean to, or into. And APO, can mean from,
or out of. With this in mind, Jesus could have gone down to
the water, had been
As
for the word APO, out of, from.. John the Baptist said to
those who came to him, “who hath warned you to flee (APO) from
the wrath to come?” This
translation is
undoubtedly correct; for the “wrath” was yet to come, and they were not yet
in it, and because of this, could not flee (APO) “out
of “ it. So, to say that Jesus only went down to
the water, and came from the water is
perfectly sound, for there is not any contextual reason to demand that it is
otherwise.
The
same argument can be used of all the instances where going “down into” and
coming “up from” or “out of” the water is used. I will only use one more
example because of its abuse. It is the example of the Philip and the Ethiopian
Eunuch found in Acts 8:27-39. It says, “And he commanded the chariot to stand
still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch: and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the
water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.” See! They say, you must
go down into the water and come up out of the water in
order to be baptized Biblically! This is used as a proof text for immersion.
The
same meanings of APO and EIS
in the Greek language still apply. Another problem for Immersionists is
that they ignore the plain statement that not only did the eunuch go into
the water and come up out of it, but so did Philip! So by their own
literalistic demands, they are not baptizing Biblically themselves!
That is, unless the preacher is getting immersed with each and every convert!
This is the undeniable result of demanding immersion from this passage! So, are
there contextual clues that may tell us how he was baptized? We find that
Philip meets the eunuch and finds him reading Isaiah. The passage that he
discusses with Philip is Isaiah 53:6. Keep in mind that there were no chapters
and verses in the Scriptures of that day. Just six verses prior to this, (in our
numbered Scriptures), which would have been considered in the immediate context,
says, “So shall he sprinkle many nations.”
Since the eunuch was the one to initiate the request for baptism, and not
Philip, the most logical means of baptism is the one he just read about, which
was sprinkling. Now this does not prove the mode in which he was
baptized, but there is more weight to this argument than any person can make
from this passage for immersion.
“John also was baptizing in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there.”
-John 3:23
Immersionists
feel that this is a strong argument for their case. Why would it be important
that John should have “much water” unless is for the purpose of
plunging converts beneath the water by immersion? Keep in mind that the
Bible’s geography is located in desert regions. If you were not by one of the
rivers, drinkable water would be sparse. The likelihood of large groups of
people being allowed to foul the local water supply by dunking them under what
available water they had would never have been permitted. Notice that Aenon is
not a lake, nor a river. In fact, the word Aenon means spring, or fountain, and
that by archeological investigation we know that the springs are still there as
they were 2000 years ago.
To
the disappointment of many Immersionists, it is evident that these shallow
springs were never sufficiently deep enough to accommodate their mode of
baptism. Because of the “many springs” that are located there, we can
legitimately say that a better translation would be “many waters,” and not
“much water” because it can be mislead people into thinking that it refers
to the depth of the water and not to the amount that was there.
The conclusion that this passage favors immersion is an unwarranted assumption,
a mere supposition; a thousand such suppositions do not prove one truth! The
“much water” of Aenon, has never proved, nor can it prove that even one
of John’s disciples was ever immersed in baptism!
Another
example of baptism is noted in Acts 10:44-47, where the gentiles believed and
received the Holy Ghost as well as we. Peter asked, “Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” Notice that he does
not talk about taking them to the water, but the water was to be brought
to them. It is a historical fact that most houses did not have
large reserves, or pools of water in them. This coincides with the fact that
John the Baptist said, “ I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance.” Matthew 3:11, and Acts 1:5, “John truly baptized with
water.” We are not applied to the water; the water is to be applied to us!
The
New Testament records how Paul was baptized, Acts 9:17-18. There is no plausible
reason to believe that there was a pool sufficient enough for immersion baptism
within this household. To say otherwise does not coincide with the scarcity of
water in this region. It would be foolish to suppose that they would have
allowed someone to be immersed in such a water supply even if they had one,
since this would foul their entire supply of water. What little water people had
in these regions was used with great care. Also notice that there is nothing
within this passage that says that they left from this place to a body of water
that would be sufficient for immersion baptism. Finally, I call your attention
to the fact that Paul stood up in order to be baptized. Now, since he was
standing to be baptized, then it is not probable that he was baptized by
immersion, but by sprinkling or pouring.
|
This
is an example of a painting from the fifth century depicting the baptism of
Jesus. This is the typical illustration that we find in all paintings from the
early period of Christianity. You will notice that the subject of this baptism
is standing in the water while the administrator is pouring water from above to
symbolize the descent of the Holy Spirit and purification.
We
do find that archeologists have found pools for retaining water in areas where
running water was not available. While early Christians may have used some of
these as a baptismal for the use of ceremonial purification, we do not see any
evidence in picture or writing that anyone was ever immersed in one.
An
early Christian writing that is called the Didache, which is dated anywhere
between 50A.D. and 150 A.D., records detailed instructions on how to baptize.
“Now concerning
Notice
that nowhere does the writer say that anybody ever went under the
water in order to be baptized! Also notice that he calls pouring a
legitimate mode of baptism!
It
is not the method in how you baptize that matters, it is the meaning which it
conveys.
Obedience
and Baptism
One
might assume that since I have contended that baptism is not essential to
salvation, I must somehow easily dismiss it as optional for the believer. To an
extent this must be true, but it is not the Biblical approach to this issue.
The
optional aspect of baptism has been overplayed. This is probably an overreaction
to the extremes of Baptismal Regeneration. The Scriptures and the Early Church
put things into a better perspective.
In
the New Testament, we see that Jesus in the Great Commission commands baptism.
Matt. 28: 19, 20. We see that this
is promoted as a command by Peter in Acts 2:38. We also see the example of
Christians being baptized by the apostles and ministers in the Scriptures. It is
without a doubt accepted as a Christian’s obligatory duty.
Salvation
in the Early Church was closely related to baptism. Baptism was not a
"cause" of salvation, but the rejection of baptism could only
be seen as a rejection of Christ and His claim on their lives. Because of this,
it is understandable that baptism and salvation would be spoken of in close
connection; but that connection does not in any way establish baptism as the
effectual "cause." The
Early Church Fathers also preached the command of baptism. In fact, at times
they seem to equate baptism with salvation. Not that they misunderstood the
concept of salvation by grace through faith, but there was a greater reason for
this. Persecution has nearly always accompanied those that are part of the
Church. In the second century, persecution was at a fever pitch. Many spies were
going around in the effort to infiltrate and expose those who were believers.
Getting found out as a believer in Christ was a death sentence.
To
be baptized in the First and Second centuries, was a public act of renunciation
of all the things you believed prior to that. No one, especially spies that
would infiltrate the Church, would submit to this ritual, for if they submitted
to Christian baptism, they would have been seen as rejecting their former
beliefs, and would be identifying with Christianity as the truth.
We
have taken this obligation all too lightly. We do not seem to appreciate the
significance of baptism as deeply as those of the first two centuries. Those
that were baptized were called witnesses, the Greek word being martyrs.
They intended to live and die for Christ. They were willing to obey all
of His commands, even at the expense of persecution and death.
Any true believer in Christ should joyfully submit to baptism on the grounds that is a command of Christ. Not to gain salvation, but to obey their Lord. One can only suspect what blessings a believer loses if they are conscious of the fact that they have omitted the simple command of Christ. Oh, so easy; and yet so neglected! I do not know how God views this present day casualness towards believers baptism. How people can feel comfortable with the knowledge that it is a command of God, while at the same time rationalize that it is optional, I don't know. One thing I do know, we will one day account for neglecting the loving request of our Savior. How can one know the command of Christ to obey such a simple submission, adamantly refuse to do their Savior's request? How can one be said to love Christ, to serve Him, to believe Him, or to obey Him, and continue to snub the command? Is such faith a saving faith?
Baptism
by the numbers
After counting all of the references to the term BAPTIZO and its derivatives in the Greek New Testament, we find that the term is used 131 times, and after excluding the repeats from the synoptic Gospels, we see that the term is used 99 independent times. Of all of these passages, fewer than twenty can be appealed to in the effort to prove that baptism is essential to salvation. “The words salvation, faith, repent, forgive, sin, save, wash, justify, sanctify, clean, believe, purge, remission, redeem, blood, reconcile, and kindred words that are used of redemption, are used 3,322 times in Scripture and not once is water baptism stated as being necessary in any redemptive process before sins can be remitted. On the other hand, hundreds of Scriptures require blood, faith in the blood, and a simple confession of sins to God to have sins remitted, but never is baptism once hinted as an essential to redemption.” Finis Dake, God's Plan for Man, page 538.
If there is anything that we can draw from the evidence of this data, it is that that the overwhelming idea of the Gospel is defined as salvation by grace through faith, and not any salvation by baptism. It would be hard to concede that the weight of the evidence somehow supports the idea that baptism has any integral connection to the Gospel. The number should also indicate that there has been an overemphasis on this issue in some denominations. My emphasis in this paper is out of concern for the abuses and attitudes surrounding the issue. I do not present these things to debate, but to stir the hearts of those that put great emphasis on this topic. With this thought I happily conclude.
Also Available: Christian Baptism, Twelve Reasons Immersion Is No Baptism, Baptism In A Nutshell, Immersion Proved To Be A Romish Invention