Baptism

Well… in my usual inconsiderate form I have written a book on baptism. This post is 3.5 pages long, single-spaced, 12 Point Times in Word with 1 inch margins (not including the list of verses at the end). That’s not for bragging purposes, but just to warn you: if you are the kind of person that can’t stop once they’ve started, make sure you have a little bit of time set aside! Otherwise, I think I’ll just use this post as a reference to give people when they ask me of my views on baptism!

I do not have time to address each verse (of which there are approximately 50 addressing baptism), but I will address the main issues people seem to have concerning baptism. There are, I think, four main questions raised. First, how should one be baptized? Second, who should be baptized? Third, in who’s name is it to be administered? Fourth, does it play any part in a person’s salvation?

First, how should one be baptized?

To answer the first question, it is extremely important to note that the Greek word for baptism is “baptisma” which literally means “immersion.” Having studied baptism (albeit, not extensively) I find no evidence whatsoever to support any other method or example of baptism by anything but submersion. There are, however, examples of submersion where the author wrote his account in enough detail to mention it. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism, he says “Jesus came up immediately out of the water,” implying of course that He had been in the water during the baptism. In the account in Acts 8 when Philip baptizes the Ethiopian, it says, “When they came out of the water” perhaps implying that Philip also went all the way into the water! Simply stated, I don’t know of any argument from scripture for any other method of baptism.

Second, who should be baptized?

People who have professed faith in Jesus Christ, that is, people who have demonstrated and articulated an understanding of true saving faith should be baptized. The Ethiopian asked to be baptized after having the Scriptures explained to him. Twelve men whose names are unknown were baptized a second time (they were first baptized under John) after hearing the gospel from Paul. There isn’t any required waiting time (or even suggested!) between the time someone professes faith in Jesus Christ and when they should be baptized. Every example of baptism I know of is almost immediately after hearing and professing faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the easiest way Christians can begin obeying their Lord. I would be wary of someone who professes faith in Christ and refuses to be baptized. I was that person once, and the reason I did not want to be baptized was because I didn’t want to obey Jesus’ commands, hiding behind the fact that we don’t have to work to be saved. Does a person opposed to following the commands of his Lord sound like a Christian to you? I didn’t think so.

In addressing this question, I hope that the issue of infant baptism has been covered. If the infant has expressed an understanding of Biblical salvation and professes to accept it, then sure, baptize him! Otherwise, wait until he can appreciate its significance and chooses it for himself. Don’t give him any reason in the future for a false sense of security, and don’t be so naïve as a parent to think that since a pastor got him wet in a church in front of people that his fate is somehow sealed. Doesn’t work like that.

Third question, in whose name are we to be baptized?

This is a particularly annoying question to debate those who believe it is strictly “in Jesus name.” After all, every example of baptism in the Bible is in the name of the Lord Jesus. Personally, I think this is a needless hairsplitting distinction, and I’ll explain why. When we do something “in the name of Jesus,” what do we mean? We are saying that we do it in His authority. Now, how did Jesus say we are supposed to baptize? In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, when I say that we should be baptized as Jesus commanded us to be baptized, I am challenged to find one example of this happening. However, I hope we can see the error in this. If no one ever followed God’s command, does that mean that we are therefore not supposed to follow his command? I’m not sure how anyone in his right mind could come to that conclusion, but people do. Anyways, it’s a foolish distinction as I said, because the authority of the Son is not different than that of the other persons of the Trinity. This is because each member of the trinity is equally God with the other two. It can also be concluded from the verse in Matthew 28, since the word “name” is actually singular in the Greek. It does not read, in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but in the name. They are one God, and one authority.

The troubling thing about discussing this issue with those who distinguish these two baptisms is that, in my experience, they do not believe anyone baptized any other way is saved! I’ve been told that I'm unregenerate because I was baptized the way Jesus commanded to baptize. They join the apostolic examples of baptism with their erroneous view of salvation and Eph 2:5, which says we have one baptism, thereby assuming that since I was not baptized into the same baptism, I am not within the circle of believers. Now if that dumbfounds you, join the club.

Fourth, and most importantly, does baptism play a part in salvation?

It absolutely does not play any part in justification of the believer.

It is of course important to offer a positive reason for my own position that baptism plays no part in salvation in order to justify my interpretation of certain verses. The best way to do this is provide an example of someone being baptized after being saved, proving conclusively that baptism is not necessary for salvation (although all people saved should do what they can to be baptized). Acts 10:47 is that verse: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” So the Gentiles of whom Peter speaks received the Holy Spirit before being baptized. This absolutely demolishes the idea that baptism can be a part of our salvation. Couple that with the multiplicity of other verses in the Bible which are clear we cannot work for salvation, but are justified by faith and saved by grace only, and you have no excuse to hold to the heretical idea that we are saved by anything we do, or have done to us for that matter (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 5:1, Gal 3:2, 2 Tim 1:9, etc.). The list goes on for quite some time I assure you.

Most people that try to argue for cleansing of sin via baptism use Acts 2:38, John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Mark 16:16. Before I start, however, I must mention another thing to note when studying this topic: “baptisma” does not always refer to water baptism. In fact, especially in the context of John the Baptist, a baptism of the Holy Spirit is mentioned (Mk 1:8, Lk 3:16, Jn 1:33, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16). There is also a baptism into Christ (Rom 6:3), a baptism by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13), a baptism by fire (Lk 3:16, related somehow to the baptism of the Spirit), baptism into death (Rom 6:4), etc. It is clear that the word “baptisma” could be used liberally with reference to “immersion” in anything, not strictly physical water (though that does seem to be the most common usage).

Now, let’s address these verses. The easiest to explain is 1 Peter 3:21, which is used because it says, “baptism now saves us.” The thing here is context. In fact, this is the weakest verse to use in favor of baptism playing a part in salvation because Peter bends over backwards to prove that water baptism isn’t what he’s talking about! Let’s post the whole verse from the NKJV: “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.” It should be painfully clear here that Peter isn’t talking about physical baptism.

The next verse to be explained is Mk 16:16. Now, besides the textual problem with the end of Mark (Mark probably did not write any of the verses after 8), I am not convinced that this proves baptism is necessary for salvation. The text reads that all “who believe and are baptized will be saved.” So let me ask you, if someone believes and reads the Bible daily, will he be saved? Or if someone believes and goes to church, will he be saved? The answer is yes. But does reading the Bible or going to church play any part in justifying you before God? No, of course not. Our works are as filthy rags (Is 64:6). It is the believing that saves, the baptism is a commandment of God to be followed, not relied on for salvation. And if we look at the end of Mark 16:16, what characterizes those who are condemned? Unbelief. So the believing is the concentration here, not baptism. Couple this with the textual dilemma and Mark 16:16 is a weak source indeed from which to attempt to support baptism for salvation.

John 3:5 is also fairly easy to explain. Again, context is key. It reads “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now you might be thinking to yourself, “Wait, that doesn’t say anything about baptism!” Yea… that’s what I think every time anyone points me to this verse! They erroneously interpret “water” as a reference to baptism based on their erroneous presupposition! Water carries no such strict defintion in the Bible. The following is my interpretation of the passage. Since the context is Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus on being born again, and Nicodemus mentions grown men entering their mother’s wombs, it’s obvious to me that Jesus is clearing up what it means to be born the second time. He’s saying, “Nicodemus, you don’t get it. You have to born physically [water] and spiritually [Spirit], not physically a second time!” The water here is talking about the water of the womb. There are other interpretations to what is meant by water, namely that of John MacArthur, who I greatly respect, who interprets it as a need for spiritual cleansing; however, in light of the rest of scripture, baptism cannot and should not be forced into this verse.

Next comes Acts 22:16, where Paul is recounting the story of his journey to Damascus. He recalls that Ananias says “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” To me it seems like the grammatical order of the words connects “wash away your sins” with “calling on the name of the Lord” rather than with “be baptized.” However, since English translations often add commas and order words based on interpretation, such an argument is admittedly weak. So I grab my handy dandy Greek-English Bible and read straight from the original language! Upon reading it, I find that the rendering in the NKJV is accurate, and washing away one’s sins is connected with “invoking the name of God.”

The final and, frankly, most troubling verse on baptism is Acts 2:38: “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.” Without a solid understanding of salvation as taught throughout the rest of scripture (i.e. by grace through faith, not of works – Eph 2:8-9), it would be easy to assume that we need to get baptized in order to be saved. But with proper guidance from those who know the nuances of Greek (ex. John MacArthur via the MacArthur Study Bible or Matt Slick via www.carm.org!), we can see that better translations might render “because of the forgiveness of sins” (MacArthur) or “for the purpose of identifying yourself with the forgiveness of sins” (Slick). Understanding the verse in this light would then remove any implication that baptism has anything more to do with forgiveness than as an outward picture of an inward reality.

We need to stop trying to play a part in salvation. This comes only from our selfish desire to contribute to the grace of God, to somehow feel needed or important, neither of which describe us lowly human beings. Quite frankly, we need to get over ourselves. As Christ said, we need to die to ourselves. We need to stop putting our actions up on a pedestal and start seeing ourselves for what we are, cesspools of wickedness and sacs of sin that God through His Son Jesus Christ has decided to graciously redeem and transform into the likeness and image of Jesus. All glory belongs to Him and Him alone.

A list here is provided of all the verses I could find that mention baptism of some kind.

Mt 3:6 – John is baptizing
Mt 3:11 – baptize unto repentance
Mt 3:13 – Jesus desires to be baptized by John
Mt 3:16 – Jesus completes his baptism
Mt 21:25 – Jesus talks with Pharisees about the baptism that John performed
Mt 28:19 – baptize in the name of the father son holy spirit
Mk 1:4 – a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
Mk 1:8 – John baptizes with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit
Mk 10:39 – With Jesus’ baptism, James and John will be baptized
Mk 16:16 – Those who believe and are baptized will be saved
Lk 3:3 – baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
Lk 3:16 – John baptizes with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire
Lk 7:29 – tax collectors proclaim John’s baptism righteous
Jn 1:26 – John baptizes with water
Jn 1:31 – John baptizes with water
Jn 1:33 – John baptizes with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit
Jn 3:22 – Jesus baptized people
Jn 3:23 – John was baptizing
Jn 3:26 – John testified that Jesus was baptizing and people were coming to Him
Jn 4:1 – the Pharisees hear that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John
Jn 4:2 – Jesus did not physically do the baptizing, but his disciples did
Acts 1:5 – John baptized with water, the apostles would be baptized with the Holy Spirit
Acts 2:38 – repent and be baptized for the remission of sins
Acts 8:12 – both men and women are baptized
Acts 8:13 – Simon the sorcerer is baptized
Acts 8:16 – People who had been baptized in Jesus’ name had not received the Holy Spirit
Acts 9:18 – Saul is baptized
Acts 10:47 – Peter says that these who have received the Holy Spirit should be baptized
Acts 10:48 – Peter commands that Christians be baptized in the name of the Lord
Acts 11:16 – John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit
Acts 16:15 – Lydia is baptized
Acts 18:25 – Apollos only knows the baptism of John
Acts 19:3 – About 12 men say that they were baptized in John’s baptism
Acts 19:4 – John baptized them with a baptism of repentance
Acts 19:5 – They get baptized in the name of the Lord
Acts 22:16 – Ananias commands Saul to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins
Rom 6:3 – People baptized into Christ Jesus baptized into his death
Rom 6:4 – buried with Christ through baptism into death
1 Cor 1:13 – “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1 Cor 1:17 – Christ sent Paul not to baptize, but to preach the gospel
1 Cor 12:13 – Christians baptized by one Spirit into one body
1 Cor 15:29 – Paul mentions people being baptized for the dead
Gal 3:27 – As many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ
Eph 4:5 – one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Col 2:12 – buried with Christ in baptism
1 Pet 3:21 – baptism now saves us

Soul Support

An article in Stanford caught my eye today. It made it as cover story and is titled "Soul Support." It is about the spiritual discussions that have become so much more frequent on the Stanford campus lately. One student said it seems like they've "doubled." Diane Rogers says that "Students are speaking up about their religious beliefs, as many on campus work to replace polite silence with genuine understanding." I was quite pleased going into it, but I had my suspicions about exactly what they were praising in this article, since Stanford isn't exactly the bastion of righteousness I wish it could be.

The format is as follows: The main article with pictures and bios dispersed throughout. The bios are what interested me because they had stories about real people, not just some journalist analyzing the progression of spiritual discussions in dorms and in the classroom. The article was pretty repetetive anyways (that seems to be a trend in the material im reading lately...). It did keep my attention through the whole article, though, so I'll give that much credit to the author/editor.

I read all the bios, but was sorely disappointed with all of the "Christian" entries. The first was of the son of an Episcopal priest. He grew up very much enjoying the church, and said he always felt like a part of it. He apparently struggled with homosexuality and said that in his senior year of high school he decided to choose his faith because his faith was more important to him. How refreshing! Someone who decided to conquer with the power of Christ such a painful struggle. But I was mistaken. That's not what he meant. I guess he meant his community or earthly relationships with people of a certain religion were more important, and that by 'coming out' he would lose those. "That changed during his freshman year on the Farm." It was then that he decided being closeted was keeping him from a right relationship with God. By the time school let out he had a boyfriend that his parents wanted to meet and was still active in the Christian church.

But is honesty really all that's necessary to have a right relationship with God? It's certainly the first step. You have to admit you have sin before you can start seeking a Savior. But there's a difference between confession and repentance and simply "being honest with yourself." Sinful behavior is simply not acceptable to God. It breaks off communion with Him. The apostle Paul addresses this area quite tactfully in Romans 1:27: "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." In 1 Tim 1:9-10, men who practice homosexuality are listed among murderers, the sexually immoral, liars, enslavers, those who dishonor their parents, and that which is contrary to sound, or healthy, doctrine. I simply find no evidence from the Bible or my own experience for the possibility of being in communion with God and being sexually immoral in any way. It doesn't make sense. It can't happen.

Another story that was actually not in a bio reported a Christian that had been dating a Jew for over 2 years. Now, one believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Savior, and another totally rejects that. I'm not sure what sort of spiritual encouragement they could possibly get from each other based on this observation, but I don't see how this is at all excusable. Perhaps the Christian missed 2 Corinthians 6:14 which tells us explicitly not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers."

One encouraging story featured a particularly gentle student, apparently gifted with service. She says she leans toward the "social" aspect of Christianity. The context was going on missions trips, so I can only assume she means giving of herself to her community (or someone else's!). She seemed pretty solid, being confident that she was "well-equipped" (2 Tim 3:17), striving for "continuous communication with God throughout the day" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), and keeping a daily journal to keep herself accountable. She certainly seemed like an example to be followed!

One red flag came up at the end of the bio, though, when she said she distances herself from "the ugly side of Christianity that can be so alienating for so many people." They didn't go into any detail about it, but I can only hope she meant the history of the Roman Catholicism and not the sayings of Jesus such as are found in Luke 14 or Matthew 7, which contain very radical claims about who is a Christian.

My purpose here is only to follow the command given us in 1 Timothy 4: "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers." The goal of correction is never rejection, but restoration. We need to guard our life and doctrine and take care that it does not turn one iota to the left or right, then we will rescue ourselves and hearers from sinful behavior and bring each other into a right relationship with God.

Misquoting Jesus

The following is an email I wrote recently. It requires some background knowledge to understand better, so I'll give that to you before you read this monster. I went on a cruise to Alaska to kick off my summer, and while I was there I did a lot of reading. I stopped by a bookstore in one of our ports and replenished my reading supply with a couple books, both unfavorable to the Christian worldview. One was by Freud, or Nietzsche, one of those philosopher guys whose books had to be translated. Forgive my ignorance. I have yet to read that one. The second was a book called Misquoting Jesus, by a Bart D. Ehrman. He made a case, or tried to, for dismantling the reliability of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. At the very least he believes we cannot put quite as much trust in it as we would like to even if we don’t outright reject its veracity. One reason he gave for this was the fact that we could not be certain of the authorship of some of the books. No, he didn't just stick with Hebrews, the author of which we in fact are not certain. He went so far as to attack the authorship of "closed case files" (i.e. Paul's letters, of whom the authorship seems quite obvious). Maybe Paul didn’t actually write all those epistles, perhaps someone claiming to be Paul did. Or perhaps scribes later added some things to support their own worldview.

One passage specifically came into question that seems to look unfavorably upon women. Paul, however, looks quite favorably on women throughout his writings. Could this be an addition or a fraud? We shall see. With that, here is the email.


------------------

I'm glad to see that you read the book you borrowed. Had it been me I would have been far less determined to finish reading it - especially with the way this particular author writes. I do not remember too many specifics based on what the author wrote, so I can only respond to what you have told me. This especially applies to the subject that you brought up about women teaching. I was not aware that he addressed it. Perhaps I have simply forgotten or skipped over that part like I did with a lot of that book. Anyways, here begins my rant.

When you admitted you had no answer to this apparent contradiction in Paul's theology as perhaps an evidence of his non-authorship of one or the other passage, my apologetic mind kicked in and I immediately had an answer for you. I am convinced that Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (I assume that’s what you meant, though you forgot the "2"), and frankly, I am surprised you were so easily convinced (or perhaps it was not easily?).

Now, I'm not sure what "bulk of his writing" you are referring to that contradicts his view in 1 Tim 2:9-15, because I know of none. However, if we simply compare his view of women using both 2 Tim 1:5 and 1 Tim 2:11-15, leaving out verses 9 and 10 - modesty doesn’t seem to be the issue - we see a healthy view of the role and value of women and of the plan of God for mankind, rather than a contradiction in the former.

Lets look first at 2 Timothy 1:5

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well."

Paul commends two women for being sincere and devoted faithful followers of Christ. The way it is worded would imply that they passed it on to Timothy. They taught him what he knows. A later reference to his godly upbringing is made in 2 Tim 3:14-15. Timothy is told to remember, "from whom you learned it" (14). The Greek “whom” is plural, so it becomes quite obvious that Paul is referencing his earlier acknowledgement of his mother and grandmother. Clearly Paul is pleased with the fact that Timothy's mother and grandmother raised him in godly fashion, teaching him spiritual things.

Now, 1 Timothy 2

"11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

First, I would like to note that this clearly is referring to women's authority over men in the church. That is of particular importance when it comes to discussing God's plan for the role of women. In the case that a woman was never allowed to exercise any authority over any male of any age in any situation, a woman would not be able to bring up her own male children! Such an interpretation of this passage would be utter foolishness.

Paul has never been one to look down on women, or consider them of less worth than men. In his epistle to the Galatians, he says, "there is neither male nor female" in the context of salvation (3:28). He encouraged an equal view of men and women, and frequently esteemed women for their service to him and the gospel, mentioning them by name in his letters. However, it had clearly been revealed to him that men and women do not serve the same purpose [that is, they do not have the same roles. They both serve the purpose of glorifying God, to be sure]. In the church, women should submit to male authority and not teach grown men.

They are, however, encouraged to bring up children in godly fashion, drawing support from both references we are using! The support from 2 Tim 1:5 is self evident, and I have already discussed it. However the evidence from 1 Tim 2:15 probably gets lost in the rest of the passage and the discussion over this often controversial matter.

"Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

It seems to me that Paul is encouraging women here to raise babies (childbearing) in godly fashion (faith, love, holiness, self-control), so that what was meant to be [God’s plan for the role of women] will be restored (saved). This is exactly what he commended Lois and Eunice for. So there is complete harmony, rather than contradiction and question of authorship.

I think there's good reason he [Ehrman] didn't use the "easy" argument.

With respect to the rest of the book, I too noticed that the author does not suggest reasoning with which to view the subject (or any other subject he makes mention of). He stated facts, but didn’t draw conclusions, and that was something else that frustrated me.

I thought it was interesting how many times he stressed that there were mistakes or changes made to the text. However, if we actually look at it, what we have as scripture is incredibly reliably preserved despite our human shortcomings, and I am convinced that we have a Book that can be trusted as the Word of Christ, leading to salvation (Rom 10:17).

-----------------------------

I hope this helped in convincing you of the reliability of Scripture and its ability to “give an answer” (1 Peter 3:15). Anything in brackets was added to the email to help clarify meaning that I thought might not be obvious, and the grammar/spelling was edited, though I'm sure there are more mistakes to be found. If anything is unclear, let me know.

Where Home Is

There has been a lot of rearranging lately concerning where friends’ homes are. Many have moved down to the OC, and it has been extremely difficult to see them go. Soon I myself will have a new home, moving into the dorms on campus at Stanford. It has caused and will cause separation between friends when it is time to go home.

The Bible says that a Christian’s home is not in the world; rather, it is in heaven with Christ. It metaphorically relates this truth to people visiting a foreign country, being citizens of their homeland. “But our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). We desire heavenly things and put our minds on Christ and things above, as opposed to people who put their mind on earthly things.

I’ve noticed that when I am away from home (i.e. away from friends and family) I long to be back there, and to be with the people I love. I miss people, a lot. There are tears, many of them. And how often does this happen with my Lord? How often do I long to be home with Him, at peace forever? Tyler Sultze was our speaker last week at middle school camp, and he made some radical statements about our desire to be with Christ. He asked us to apply Philippians 3:7 to its extreme: “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.” If we could give up the one thing that is most important on this earth to be with Christ, would we be content? He said that if he never saw his wife or unborn baby again, but instead went to be with Christ, he would be satisfied. And he hopes his wife thinks the same.

And what of the very thing that keeps me from Christ now? Do I mourn over the sin that separates him and me? Do I strive to be united with Him as much as is possible in this life by seeking to live as He lives? Sin is a terrible thing. It is a sign of our citizenship when we have godly sorrow over sin, yet it is never good to be unhealthily preoccupied with it. We need not spend all our time mourning, but rejoicing over the fact that our relationship with Him is real, and we are blessed. Philippians says, “we eagerly await a Savior from [heaven]” (3:20). We can’t wait to see our Lord Jesus. We look forward to being with Him finally.

So a change in perspective takes place. I may be sad that I have left my friends, or that my friends have left me, but my God is with me always, and He is who I most long to be with. Let us rejoice with each other that we can all await so great a future as fellow children of God.