Sunday, July 23, 2006

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

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evan!

Your 'paper' on baptism is more thorough than those of most churches! Thanks for taking the time to define baptism biblically and for sharing what you found with the rest of us! This is a great example of how we can know what the Bible says and use it as the foundation for everything in life and godliness!

Unknown said...

Evan,
I appreciate the well thought out approach you took on explaining Biblical Baptism. Thank you for standing on the Truth of Scripture as you constructed your argument. Well done!

Anonymous said...

Evan,

Outstanding treatise on Biblical baptism. Great work. God bless you as you embark on your pursuit of higher education. Enjoyed seeing you in Orange County Sunday before last.

Mickey Sheu said...

As a believer in infant baptism myself, there are obviously differences between what I would say regarding things and what you have said here.

Do you plan on interacting with the paedo-baptist view? That would certainly make this more complete.

Evan said...

mxu,

Thank you very much for your comment! As to interacting with the paedobaptist view, I reread my blog to see if I missed the issue, but it is covered in the second paragraph of the second section. Perhaps you should define your particular view on infant baptism. For example, Matt Slick, one of the men I referenced in here and an apologist I highly esteem, "believes in" infant baptism, but only as a covenant sign for a baby dedication. He always clarifies that it's not for regenerational purposes. The salvation view is the one I have beef against, as is obvious from my concluding paragraph.