OpenTheo
00:00
00:00

Baptisms (Part 2)

Foundations of the Christian Faith
Foundations of the Christian FaithSteve Gregg

In this discussion, Steve Gregg highlights the variations and differing opinions when it comes to the practice of baptism within Christianity. He emphasizes the importance of searching the Scriptures to understand the Biblical reasons behind different beliefs and practices. While acknowledging the lack of specificity in the Bible regarding the mode of baptism, he stresses the crucial role of obedience in the Christian faith, including being baptized as a symbol of repentance and commitment to Christ. Ultimately, he reminds listeners that the heart is what truly matters in the Christian faith, rather than external marks or traditions.

Share

Transcript

In this session, we will continue talking about the subject of baptisms, which is on our list of matters of interest when we consider what the Christian foundations are. Not all Christians have placed an equal emphasis on the subject of baptism, although the writer of Hebrews obviously put it in his short list of important fundamentals of the Christian faith. I say it's a short list because it only contains six entries—repentance, faith, baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment— out of what could have been a nearly innumerable selection of ideas or doctrinal points that could have been included.
And so to say that this is on the short list is another way of saying it's of more than ordinary primary importance. And yet it is not so to all Christians. Not all Christians have understood the importance of baptism.
On the other hand, there are some who have, in my opinion, if it's possible, overestimated the importance of baptism, as is true with so many issues. After 2,000 years of development of Christian doctrine from the apostolic times to our own, virtually every variation has mutated off of the original source, so that we have almost as many varieties of opinions about almost every considerable doctrine as there are varieties of dogs from the one common stock. And so with something as important as baptism, it was inevitable that people would look at that closely and formulate opinions.
And because opinions are just that—opinions—a lot of different thoughts and varieties of understanding would accrue. And of course, it's not surprising that variation would take place in both directions—in the direction of de-emphasizing, on the one hand, and in the emphasis on over-emphasizing on the other. It would be surprising if it were not so.
I'm not saying that it would be wrong to take a very hard line and an extreme, hard, inflexible position on some subjects in the Bible, but it is also not surprising that if variation of ideas enter into the Christian discussion of the subject, that some of those variations would go in one direction and some in another. And in fact, I think that has happened in the case of baptism. And not only is there, in my judgment, a problem with some persons under-emphasizing and other persons over-emphasizing baptism from what would be the biblical norm, on the specific things that are believed about baptism, even among those who give it proper emphasis, there are differences of opinion about some of the major things that pertain to the practice of baptism.
If we were discussing a subject like head coverings on women, we would have to say it's very difficult to judge by the sparse material in the Bible exactly how the practice of head coverings on women was intended. We have a short passage in 1 Corinthians 11 about women covering their heads. Paul does not explain what he regards to be an adequate covering, whether a very small cap or doily is adequate, or whether he had in mind a full head covering, even a facial covering, as some Middle Eastern people wore.
He does not explain, and we don't know. We simply don't know what he regarded to be an adequate head covering. Furthermore, there are certain things about when it was appropriate to wear it and when it was not appropriate.
Is it only in the public meeting, or is it whenever a woman is seeking to be devout, which would be at all hours of all days? Exactly when is it that a woman should wear a head covering? I have a feeling that Paul's readers in Corinth knew more than we do about their own practices, and Paul simply came forward to support those practices. He didn't have to state the particulars, because those particulars were known. However, if that was a practice that we were obliged to fulfill now, as many godly Christians believe it is, I could personally wish that we had more exact information.
If God wants us to practice that, I could wish he had left us more information as to how that is to happen. What does it mean to cover your head? When is it proper and so forth? We would hope that anything that is important to God for us to practice, he would have given us at least adequate information that we could practice it in the manner that he pleased. But there is so little information on a subject like that that there are many opinions about it, and many of them probably will never be resolved.
It will just be that people divide into camps and say, well, I think it's this way, others think it's that way. On the issue of baptism, I think there is adequate information to decide the principal issues of practice, although not all of the leading traditions of the churches have followed that biblical information. And therefore, if we look at that biblical information together, and I intend to in this session, we will be going across the grain of much very prevalent church tradition that's been in place for almost the entirety of the age of the church.
Some of the practices concerning baptism, which I do not regard to be biblical, have been around almost since the second century. And therefore, it's really hard to go against the tide when it's been flowing so strongly in one direction for so many hundreds of years. I simply want to say that if any of you have different opinions about baptism than those that I present, you are certainly encouraged to search the scriptures and see if these things are so, and if you find that the conclusions I present are not, in your opinion, the biblical ones, then please disagree and hold to whatever you find to be biblical.
At the same time, I would say let's try not to react against biblical truth out of some blind loyalty to a traditional or denominational preference or background. It's very hard to dislodge longstanding traditions about things, and I think that we can look at the Bible to obtain answers about most of the issues that are relevant to the proper practice of water baptism. In this session, we're going to talk about water baptism.
The subject that the writer of Hebrews raises is baptisms in the plural. And of course, we had to discuss yesterday in our session whether that was even talking about baptisms or whether that was talking about Jewish washings, because there is even disagreement among Christians as to the meaning of the Greek word in that place. I will not go again into all my reasons for believing that baptisms is the proper translation, although we have not fully explored why it is in the plural.
Why does he say baptisms? I showed you yesterday that in the Bible a number of things are referred to as baptism. There is John's water baptism. There is Christian water baptism, which is distinct from John's baptism.
There is what is referred to as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There was something that John referred to called baptism in fire. There is something that Jesus seemed to refer to.
He didn't call it baptism in suffering, but he called it a baptism and referred to his suffering. And we remember that the word bapto, which is baptize, or baptisma, which is baptism, those words speak of dipping, immersing, or overwhelming, or flooding over. And so when we talk about being baptized in sufferings or baptized in fiery judgment or baptized in the Holy Spirit or baptized in water, presumably that word will carry that meaning of being overwhelmed or dipped.
Which, of course, brings us to the first question. What is the proper method of water baptism? What is the proper method? Obviously, from what I've just said, one might conclude that the proper method is immersion, since the word itself suggests this. The Greek word, when used prior to biblical times and in biblical times outside of a religious context, the simple meaning of the word bapto is to dip.
And therefore, it might seem that dipping in water, dipping the whole body in water, is the proper method of baptism. That is the view of many evangelical groups today. And frankly, that is the preferred mode that I understand to be biblical, too.
But without just laying it out and saying, this is what's right, I would like to tell you what the various options are and what the biblical considerations are for each of them. It could be argued, even if you believed in some other mode of baptism, for instance, pouring. Many Christians believe in pouring water over the head as a mode of baptism.
It could be argued that there is a dipping that takes place there, too, because one vessel is dipped into another in order to fill it with water, so it might be poured. So there's a dipping going on. Likewise with sprinkling, I suppose the same could be argued.
So the question then would be, if we understand the word bapto to mean dip, what is being dipped? Is some container being dipped so that water could be sprinkled or poured over the head, or is the person himself being dipped? It would seem that the word bapto could allow for any one of the major three opinions. Immersion is the term that is used for baptism by submerging the entire body of the person underwater. Pouring does not need to be defined.
It's quite obvious what pouring is, and sprinkling likewise. Now, what are the biblical evidences? Well, I told you that I favor immersion. So before I give you the arguments for immersion, I'd like to tell you what the arguments are for the other two positions.
Those who favor pouring, the principal argument in its favor biblically is that a. baptism in water is an emblem of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, with reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the Bible sometimes speaks of God pouring out His Spirit upon a person. In the act of baptizing one in the Holy Spirit, the terminology is sometimes used in the Bible that God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh.
This was the terminology used in Joel chapter 2, which was quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. He said, this, what you're seeing take place, is a fulfillment of what was written in Joel. He said, in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Now, if, in fact, water baptism is intended to be a symbol of baptism in the Holy Spirit, then pouring might be a good way to emblemize that, since the baptism in the Spirit is sometimes symbolically called a pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon a person.
This is the principal argument, I believe, as I understand it, for pouring. I have, by the way, made it a point to search out the writings of those who hold other views other than my own so that I might be able to understand the rationale. In fact, I'll just let you know at this point, if you don't know this about me already, obviously I have strong opinions about many things.
Some of them I've been brought up with and may need to be changed. It is, therefore, my concern to be as acquainted as possible with the biblical reasons that Christians do other things other than what I practice so that I might know whether they've discovered some bit of biblical data that I have ignored and so that I might correct myself, because the Bible says teachers will receive a stricter judgment. It may be humbling for a teacher to have to change his opinion and say I was wrong, but better to be humbled and saved than stubborn and receive a stricter judgment from God.
And I've always felt that that should be my priority, is that I should prefer to be corrected and humble myself and say, well, I've taught it wrong in the past, if that is, in fact, what the data points to. And so on this matter of baptism, I was raised in a denomination that immersed people. I was personally immersed when I was baptized, and obviously I tended to read the Scripture through an immersion kind of grit.
When I read of baptism and read of John baptizing and Paul baptizing and so forth, immediately the picture in my mind was of immersion. But I thought, well, gosh, an awful lot of Christians do other things than immerse, and where do they get their ideas? Certainly they believe in the Bible, too. Let me search and find out.
So I bought some books by other persons on the subject of baptism who held other views. So I hope that I'm representing correctly the views of the others. I certainly want to.
I'm not trying to slant the evidence.
I'm trying to give you the best evidence I know for each view. And as far as I know, the principal argument for pouring is based on the association with water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the use of the term pouring out of the Spirit in the Scripture, which the best way to emblemize that would be to pour it over a person's head.
So that would support pouring. By the way, there has been said to be some support for this in a very early Christian document called the Didache, spelled D-I-D-A-C-H-E, spelled like the two English words did and ache. Didache, it's pronounced, I think.
This is a Greek document, but it's available translated into English. I have it in English. The word didache means teachings, but the longer name of this document is called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.
Now, it does not claim to be written by the apostles, but it does come from the, it's one of the earliest known surviving Christian documents from the early church. And it is believed by many scholars, most, that it was written around the year 100 A.D., which was not quite within the lifetime of the apostles, but just afterwards, so that the Christians who formulated this small document actually were men whose lives had quite a bit overlapped the lives of the apostles and had occasion, no doubt, to hear the apostles teach. And they were representing what they said were the apostles' teachings on certain subjects, including baptism.
And it's very interesting. You know, when you read the Didache, you're not reading Scripture. Although the Didache was considered by some in the early centuries to belong to the canon of Scripture.
It was eventually excluded in the final decisions that were made, simply because it did not, it was not written by the apostles and came just about a little too late to be apostolic. But the fact is, there were many in the early church who regarded the Didache as binding a scripture. That is not, of course, the tradition that's come down to us.
And even though we do not consider it as binding a scripture, it is certainly a document of great value to us to know how the early Christians, whose lives actually overlapped the time of the apostles and who no doubt got their own training under the apostles themselves, when they themselves were older and leaders in the church, how they understood and presented what they believed to be the apostles' teaching about doctrine. Fascinating reading. Some of the interesting things in the Didache are that if an apostle or prophet comes to your town, you should give him hospitality for one day or possibly, if there's good reason, for two days.
But if he stays three days, he's a false prophet. And they said also, if any minister comes your way and asks for money, he's a false prophet. Interesting.
Well, that was what the Didache said about that subject. Now, the Didache also has a tractate about baptism. And the value of this tractate, of course, is it represents very early Christian teaching and practice on the subject, almost in the times of the apostles.
Whether the proper practice of the apostles by this time had changed at all, we do not know. But this is the closest we can get, other than the Bible itself, to know how baptism was practiced. And here's what it says.
You'll probably find this interesting. The Didache says, now about baptism. This is how to baptize.
Give public instruction on all these points and then baptize in running water. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other.
If you cannot, in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast. And any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.
This is interesting for its antiquity, but it does have some things that seem to be in contrast to the practice, at least in the book of Acts. For example, requiring people to fast for one or two days before they're baptized does not agree with the practice in the book of Acts of baptizing a person at the moment they're saved. The Ethiopian eunuch, for instance, got saved and baptized the same day.
Likewise, the 3,000 who were converted on the day of Pentecost, they were baptized, it would appear, the same day. And so forth. Whenever you read of someone getting saved in the New Testament, you read of them being baptized the same day, with the exception of Saul, who was blinded for three days after his conversion and then was baptized at the end of that time.
But baptism, in the Bible, we don't have any evidence that for a person to fast while being baptized, or especially to fast for two or three days before being baptized, that that was a practice that the apostles used, at least not in the early days in the book of Acts. Likewise, there is no indication in the book of Acts that they gave public instruction on the subject of baptism before baptizing people. Not that it's wrong to do so, there just isn't any evidence in the book of Acts that they took the time to do that.
They just led someone to the Lord and then they baptized them, it would appear. Now, I will say this though. Beyond what is written in the book of Acts, it may be that the apostles in their later ministries did begin to delay baptism for a couple of days, until they've been able to instruct people and have them fast.
This may really represent later practices of the apostles, for all we know. There may have been wisdom in it. It may be that in the early days, when the Holy Spirit was poured out and there was great revival and they just baptized everyone who professed faith in Christ, that they were very optimistic, that anyone who came into this movement was a genuine convert.
But when they saw people like Simon the Sorcerer get baptized and then backslide, and Ananias and Sapphira and others, perhaps they began to become more cautious and say, well wait a minute, maybe we shouldn't baptize these people until we can test them a little bit. I don't know. It's possible that this is later practice of the apostles.
All I can say is that this practice described in the Didache is not exactly like what we see practiced in the cases that we read of in the book of Acts. And therefore, we would have reason to look somewhat askance at the document. But nonetheless, we have no reason to believe there's anything heretical about this document.
The thing about the mode of baptism or the method of baptism that is of interest here is that the only mode that is specified is pouring. Yet, as you could tell when I read it, I'll read the passage again, it seems as if pouring is not the first preference. He says, baptize in running water, or if there's no running water, then do it in other water.
If there's no cold water, well, go ahead and baptize in warm water. If you don't have cold or warm water, well, pour water over their head three times. It sounds as if pouring water was not the first preference, but a concession that could be made if there was an absence of water.
Which does not in itself tell us what the first preference of mode of baptism would be, because it doesn't specify. However, since pouring is said to be the proper procedure if there's a shortage of water, one would assume that a shortage of water would mean too little water to do any other form of baptism. If it is because there is not enough water that pouring is practiced, then sprinkling could hardly have been the regular practice, because if there was enough water to pour, there'd be certainly enough to sprinkle.
The only mode of baptism that would require a significant amount of water would be immersion, and therefore there may be evidence here, although we cannot claim it for certain, there may be evidence that the assumption was made that baptism was by immersion when possible, but by pouring when it was not possible, when there was not enough water. It's difficult to say, I'll read the passage to you again so you can get a feel for it yourself. Now about baptism.
This is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other.
If you cannot, in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One thing this does is give some validity to the practice of pouring.
Those who used pouring as a method could see that they had early advocates of this method in the writers of the Didache. Although, as I said, there is no evidence, in fact it would seem to be the case, that pouring was not the first method that was assumed, if there was enough water to be used, but it would be an acceptable method. Therefore, even if we found that immersion or some other method was really the principal method used, there would be grounds for allowing pouring also as legitimate baptism.
In fact, what I get from this passage is that although a great deal of legalism did creep into the church shortly after the Apostles' death, they did not get very legalistic on this point of how to baptize. It seems like they were willing, they had their preferences. Better in running water, probably meaning in a river, like John the Baptist and Jesus baptized in a river.
Probably they preferred it in a river. If you don't have a river nearby, how about in a pond? Preferably in cold water. I don't know why, that would be the first choice.
I had a friend who said warm water baptisms don't stick, but that was not based on scripture, nor on the Didache, but I think it's interesting that they assumed preferably cold water, but if there's no cold water, go ahead and use warm water. The idea here seems to be, do whatever you've got to do. Whatever you've got, work with it.
You don't have enough water for the regular kind? Then go ahead and take some and pour it over someone's head. In other words, there was not a strict legalism about this, nowhere near as much as exists in modern churches in some cases. Some Christians will go to the mat, arguing for their mode of baptism as the only acceptable mode.
This apparently was not the attitude of the persons who wrote the Didache in the year 100 A.D., which seems to have represented the normative practices of the church at that time. They seemed to be willing to make concessions. The real issue was whether a person was seeking to obey God and be baptized.
The method and the mode apparently was not the principal concern. Now, as I said, those who believe in pouring, they base it on the identification of water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and also, of course, they have in the Didache at least one very early witness that would give some support to pouring, at least as an option. How about sprinkling? Why would anyone sprinkle? Well, I don't know which came first, infant baptism or sprinkling as a mode of baptism.
We'll have to discuss the question of infant baptism in the course of this lecture. We haven't come to it yet. But if infant baptism be correct practice, then sprinkling would probably be the form least offensive to the infant.
Immersing an infant can be done, though it might cause a ruckus when the baby comes out of the water and disturb the church meeting. I don't know whether the baptism of infants was something that was decided on and then sprinkling was chosen as the method, or whether sprinkling was already being practiced and then someone decided that you could baptize infants this way too. In any case, sprinkling is often practiced, in fact, almost always practiced in groups that do baptize infants.
These would include not only the Roman Catholics, but Lutherans and Episcopalians and Methodists. I believe Methodists sprinkle. Presbyterian.
What's that? Presbyterian, right. Most of these churches that came out of the Reformation, with the exception of the Anabaptists, and also the Wesleyan, I believe practice sprinkling. I may be misinformed on this, but all of those groups practice infant baptism and I believe that sprinkling is the mode usually used for that.
Now, to my knowledge, there's really only one passage that is appealed to to favor sprinkling as a mode of baptism. However, it's reasonable in a sense. I mean, as far as it goes, it's a reasonable argument.
If you look at Ezekiel 36, we saw this passage when we were discussing some other subject previously. I don't remember which subject turned our attention here before, but, oh yeah, oh no, I don't know. If we talk about this together, I can think of it.
Anyway, Ezekiel 36, verses 25 through 27, is a description in Ezekiel's words of the new covenant, which Jeremiah described the same thing in other terms. In Jeremiah 31, we talk about the new covenant would be such that God would write his ways on our hearts and his laws in our minds. Here, Ezekiel is talking about the same phenomenon, but he uses different imagery.
Concerning the new covenant, Ezekiel writes in Ezekiel 36, 25, Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you.
I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will keep my judgments and do them. So, we can see that this is certainly a description of the new covenant, of God giving people a new heart, analogous to writing his laws on their hearts, as Jeremiah called it, and putting a new spirit in them, putting his spirit in them, and in association with this, there is the reference to sprinkling clean water on them so they would be clean.
Now, no doubt, Ezekiel's reference to sprinkling water harks back to the practice of the Jewish tabernacle and so forth where certain things were sprinkled, both with blood, and in some cases with oil, and sometimes with water. And it would be thought that when we baptize a new believer, we are drawing attention to this promise in Ezekiel, that God would cleanse away sin and give a new heart and a new spirit to the person. That takes place at conversion, and therefore the baptism that follows or occurs at the time of conversion, or in churches before conversion, at infancy, nonetheless depicts this promise by sprinkling water, clean water, even in some denominations holy water, on the baptizee, and therefore giving a visible depiction of this act of cleansing, which of course is really something that takes place in the heart, not with real water, but it's a symbol in Ezekiel of inner cleansing.
And so to symbolize this cleansing from filth, this cleansing from sin, the sprinkling of water is used in baptism to show that idea. Now, notice that those who pour and those who sprinkle both acknowledge that baptism is symbolic of something. Neither of these groups, as far as I know, teach that baptism saves people.
It is rather that it is a symbol of something, of real salvation. According to those who pour, it is a symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to those who sprinkle, it is a symbol of inner cleansing.
Both are true, that is, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and inner cleansing are both part of what God has promised to those who are converted, and both are inner and invisible experiences that might well be depicted by the outward and visible act of baptism. The question is, of course, does the Bible teach us to view baptism as a symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit or as a symbol of inner cleansing? Or is there some other symbolism that we are encouraged, biblically, to apply to baptism? I think the latter is the case, and the passages most relevant to the point are found in Romans chapter 6 and Colossians chapter 2. I'd like to look at both those passages, and we'll just read a little bit of them. Romans chapter 6 and Colossians chapter 2. Did I say Ephesians the first time or Colossians? Colossians 2. Okay, good.
In Romans 6, verses 3 through 5, Paul said, Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection. Now, baptism here is connected, in Paul's thought, with having died with Christ, being buried with Christ, and being resurrected with Christ.
If this is in fact the principal meaning of water baptism, then it is arguable that immersion would make the best outward evidence of this particular invisible reality. The fact that I've died with Christ, I've been buried with Christ, I've been raised with Christ, it would be somewhat inconvenient to depict that by putting people under actual earth and then digging them out again to depict their burial and resurrection. Somewhat safer to do it in water.
You can get them out quicker, for one thing, and get them under quicker also. You can use the same spot for many people also. Not to be irreverent, but it does seem that a case can be made, and has for a long time been made by those who practice immersion as the mode of baptism, that baptism is an acting out of a burial and of a resurrection.
That when the body is put under the water, it is as if one is saying, I've been buried with Christ, and when one comes out of the water, they are coming out a new person, into a new life, even as if they'd raised from the dead, they'd put their dead life behind them, their dead works behind them, and now they're living in newness of life, in the resurrection life of Christ. Paul did liken conversion to resurrection from the dead. In Ephesians chapter 2 and verse 1, Paul says, You who were dead in trespasses and sins, he has made alive in Christ.
He says it again in Ephesians 2 and verse 5. Ephesians 2 verses 1 and 5, both places, Paul says, that Christ has made us alive, though we were formerly dead in trespasses and sins. When you're dead, you ought to be buried. And coming alive is like a resurrection from the dead.
And therefore conversion is like a burial of the past, and a resurrection into new life, and water baptism by immersion would make for a very, let's say, appropriate symbol of that. That doesn't prove necessarily that that's the method that was used in Biblical times, but it is one thing, one thing this has in its favor, is Paul does seem to say that baptism is a symbol of our death, burial, and resurrection, whereas nowhere is it said that it is a symbol of being baptized in the Spirit or a symbol of being cleansed with water. However, the other two things that other practices base their practices on, there is at least from Paul the statement that water baptism is associated with the burial and resurrection in its meaning.
Likewise, in Colossians 2, the Bible says, the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. Here we have another witness, same guy but different place. We get some idea of what his beliefs were on this subject.
In Colossians chapter 2 and verse 11 and 12, Paul says, In him you also were 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, in which, that is, in baptism you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead. Okay, so we read that the believer was buried with Christ in the act of baptism, and in the same act of baptism he was raised with Christ. Certainly, immersion would be an excellent way of depicting this, and it's hard to know exactly how pouring or sprinkling would, if it were the one thing practiced, how that would lend itself to this analogy very well.
It is also the case, of course, that we repeatedly read of people being baptized in the New Testament in both the Gospels and the Book of Acts, that they went into the water, and then when they came up out of the water, something else happened. When Jesus came up out of the water, it says, the Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove and rested upon him. Specifically, it says, when he came up out of the water.
And also Paul, after he baptized people, when they came up out of the water, Paul put his hands on them and ministered to them the Holy Spirit, this is in Acts chapter 19, verses 1 through 7. Now, it could be argued they went down into the water not in the sense of immersion, but the person doing the baptism, for the sake of convenience, was standing waist deep in water, and the person came up to where he was, and from there he scooped the water and poured it over them or sprinkled it. That is not impossible. But all things taken together, the fact that Paul himself seems to identify baptism with a burial and resurrection, the fact that the word baptism itself means to dip or to immerse or to overwhelm, and the fact that perhaps the most natural meaning of they went into the water and came out of the water, would suggest that perhaps they went all the way under the water.
We can't press that too strongly. I would simply say, however, that immersion appears to fit the data of Scripture entirely. The other two methods do not seem to have quite the same biblical support.
Furthermore, what we read from the Didache a moment ago suggests that pouring was okay, but that was a provision for if you didn't have enough water to do the normal means of baptism. Well, what in the world could the normal means of baptism be if it required more water than pouring? It wouldn't be sprinkling. Almost certainly it would be immersion.
So, it is probably safe to say, taking the meaning of the word baptism, the statements of Scripture about its symbolic meaning, the descriptions in Scripture of people who were baptized, and the witness of this very early document, the Didache, immersion probably was the method of baptism of choice. As I said, those who wrote the Didache did not seem to care a great deal about methodology. They preferred running water and cold, but if you had to do it in still water and warm, fine.
If you didn't have enough of any kind of water, you could just pour. That's what they said. So, if you were baptized by some method other than immersion, there's no reason to believe that the method itself is disqualified.
I mean, I have a feeling that the posture of the early church, and probably the apostles themselves, was not too much legalistic about methodology. It was very important that a person be baptized. The methodology was probably secondary in importance, and I don't have any objection to persons who were sprinkled or poured, considering that to be their baptism, since I don't think the early church would object either.
Now, that brings us to the question of how important is baptism. Is it essential for salvation? Well, there are some who say yes. Some who say no, but it's very important.
Others who say it's not important at all. And I've even met one person, I think he's certainly the minority, who says it's not to even be practiced. Well, Quakers, for example, I think do not practice baptism at all, I believe.
And this is interesting. I think it's because, and again, I'm not acquainted enough with Quaker theology to really be a very good representative of what they believe, but I think they believe that true religion is such a spiritual and inward matter that outward rituals almost corrupt it, and therefore to practice outward baptism, and I think even the Lord's Supper and so forth, that these are things that the Quakers don't do. I met another guy who's not a Quaker.
I think he's a Baptist. Actually, not a very good one in this respect, but he debated me on the radio for 26 weeks on a number of subjects. One of them was baptism, and he didn't believe that baptism was important or in any sense necessary.
It's more common to find persons who do not deny the importance of baptism, but neglect it altogether or ignore it, or don't even know much about it. On the other hand, you'll sometimes find Christians who place a very strong emphasis on it, maybe as an overreaction to those who place an under-emphasis. Let me tell you what I believe, of course, the biblical view is.
I do not believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but we are commanded to be baptized, and therefore baptism is essential for obedience. Now, obedience and salvation are not quite the same thing, although you must know by now they are very closely connected. You are not saved by being obedient.
You are not saved by any works that you do. You are not saved by observing a ritual of baptism, or any other ritual, or any other good work, or any other religious deed. You are not saved by these things.
The Bible is emphatic. You are saved by faith alone. But it is equally emphatic that when you have such faith, you want to obey.
And if you don't want to obey, it's good evidence that you don't have that faith, because that's simply a part of what that faith is. It is a transforming mindset that puts in you the desire to please God and obey Him. Therefore, though it is not essential for salvation to be baptized, it is essential for obedience, for how can you disobey and still fulfill obedience? Obviously, if you are commanded to obey, if you are commanded to be baptized, as the Bible indicates, then obviously you can't be obedient to that command without being baptized.
Now, we have stressed very much in some of our earlier classes on faith, for instance, and repentance, that real salvation, when it really happens in a person's heart, it makes them into a different person than they were before. Conversion is, in fact, regeneration. A new life is given, and one of the true marks of that life is a commitment to obeying Jesus Christ.
If no such commitment exists, then regeneration has not yet happened. As I understand the Bible, you can read it for yourself and see if you find it different. But I don't believe regeneration exists in the heart of a person who does not wish to obey Jesus.
But I've also said that any number of things might prevent obedience in some situations. I'll clarify this now. I have met Christians who I believe to be truly regenerate who are not baptized.
And when I've talked to them, they've said things like, Well, you know, I've been saved for three years. I haven't been baptized yet because I'm just kind of waiting for the Holy Spirit to lead me in this matter. Well, in every case, I've told them they don't have to wait any longer.
You don't have to wait for the Holy Spirit to lead you to do what God's already commanded you to do. You don't need a special revelation when he's given a general revelation in the Scripture to all people. When he commands you to be baptized, you don't have to wait for special instructions to fulfill what you've already been told to do.
But it's clear when people say that, that that quite hasn't registered to them yet. They apparently are not aware that there's a general command to repent and be baptized. If you're not aware that there is such a command, well, it exists, for example, in Acts 2, in verse 38.
After Peter preached his first evangelistic sermon, the people said, What must we do? And he said, Well, repent and be baptized, every one of you. So to be baptized is a command. Furthermore, Jesus said in the Great Commission in Matthew 28, in verse 19 and 20, that you go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.
Obviously, if part of the Great Commission is baptizing people, it suggests that the people should have to be baptized or should be baptized. How can you baptize people if there's no responsibility on them to be baptized? It's quite obvious. Jesus said also in Mark 16, and I think it's in verse 16 of Mark.
Yeah, Mark 16, 16. Jesus said, Go and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
He that believes not shall be damned.
Very obviously, baptism was something Jesus intended for believers to do. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, commanded it to be done.
And you never find a case in the book of Acts, in the Christian practice, where people were converted and not baptized. In fact, it is a fact of history that the early Christians didn't believe a person to be Christian until they were baptized. But then that's not the same thing as saying that baptism is the means of salvation.
When I say they didn't think they were Christians until they were baptized, I should clarify that. They didn't accept them into the church until they were baptized. Peter knew that the household of Cornelius were Christians as soon as the Holy Spirit fell upon them.
And they were not yet water baptized, but they were not admitted into the church until they were water baptized. And he insisted that they be baptized that same day. He knew they were saved before being baptized, but they were not officially recognized as belonging to the church until they were.
Why? Because baptism is one of the simplest things Christ has ever commanded us to do. If a person is not willing to obey Christ in this, what evidence is there that they are willing to obey Him in anything? Including some of the many harder things, like endure until death, you know? Endure torture. And the kinds of things that we are called upon to do as Christians.
If you're not obedient enough to want to be baptized when He tells you to be baptized, what evidence is there that you want to obey Him about anything? Now, the fact that a person had repented and had believed in Christ was evinced by the fact that they were willing to obey Christ. And when they were informed that baptism was part of the package, one of the things that Jesus had commanded, well, they always were baptized. And if they weren't, if they refused to be baptized, there was good evidence that they had not yet been converted.
And therefore, believers and baptized people were considered to be basically the same group. Look at Acts chapter 8, if you would, for a moment here. In Acts chapter 8, Philip meets with the Ethiopian eunuch.
And it says in verse 35, Acts 8, 35, Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, namely Isaiah 53, which is quoted above, which the Ethiopian eunuch was already reading, Beginning with this scripture, Philip preached Jesus to him. Now, as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, Here is water.
What hinders me from being baptized?
Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded that the chariot stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Now, when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, and so he is here. Now, there is one of those cases where it says they went down into the water and came up out of the water. The interesting thing here is that it says Philip preached Jesus to him.
There is nothing said about the specific information that Philip preached. Just that he preached Jesus to the guy. And then the guy said, Well, here is water.
What hinders me from being baptized?
Well, where did the guy get the impression he should be baptized? Obviously, from Philip preaching Jesus to him. Part of the presentation of the message of Jesus must have included reference to being baptized. It was simply part of the gospel as it was preached.
When you preach Jesus, part of that preaching included that Jesus wants you to be baptized. So the guy obviously must have heard that from Philip, or else why would he say, Here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? And he was baptized right away.
Now, it seems clear that in the early church, and therefore I think should be in the modern church as well, it was understood that baptism was the first mark of obedience that was expected of believers. It was the first step of a life of obedience. It was the first act of discipleship.
And that when a person took that first step, they gave evidence that they were really serious about this and that they were now accepted into the church. It is a fact that no one was permitted to participate in communion unless they had been baptized in the early church. And this being so, one could get the impression that a person unbaptized was not saved.
But let me remind you, it is not baptism that saves, as I understand it. We'll look at some scriptures that seem to say contrary to that. But the Bible clearly says in many places it's faith that saves.
And also that faith produces works. And those works are works of obedience. And baptism is a command, so being baptized is an act of obedience.
But the question should be raised, is it possible that someone might have a saving faith and through some circumstance fail to be or neglect to be baptized? I would say there are two possibilities that would fall in this category. One, they have not adequately been instructed that baptism is a requirement. I can certainly believe that a person might have a faith that regenerates him and makes him totally willing to obey Jesus, but he's simply never been informed what Jesus wants him to do.
He's never been told to be baptized. In my understanding, his faith saves him. And his failure to be baptized is a responsibility that falls not on himself for his ignorance, but on the person who failed to tell him, the person who failed to include this particular command in his presentation of the gospel to the person.
It is faith that saves. The reason saved people get baptized is because they want to obey Jesus and they know he's commanded it. But if they want to obey Jesus and don't know that he's commanded it, how can their lack of baptism be any evidence of lack of faith? So if a person is really uninformed, they may yet be unbaptized and saved.
But of course it follows if they really are saved and they then are informed that baptism is one of the things Jesus commanded, it'll be a matter of priority to them to make up for lost time and do the thing that they should have done earlier, obviously. Now, another condition could prevail that would prevent a true believer and a really saved person from being baptized, and that would be they have not had opportunity to be baptized. The household of Cornelius did get baptized eventually, but they got saved first.
And no doubt they waited until the end of the sermon before they were baptized. They had not yet had a chance to be baptized because Peter hadn't stopped preaching yet. But as soon as they had opportunity, they did get baptized.
They were saved before being baptized, however. Salvation occurred as a separate thing from their act of being baptized. But because they were saved, they did get baptized.
The thief on the cross was not baptized, but he believed savingly and therefore he was saved. I do believe that had he had the opportunity, of course he did not because he was nailed to the cross for the remainder of his breathing moments after his conversion. But had he had the opportunity, I think his true conversion, his true saving faith would have motivated him to do what Jesus wanted him to do, and that would include being baptized.
The fact is he had no opportunity. If a person repents just before dying of thirst in the middle of the Sahara Desert and has no opportunity therefore to be baptized because there's no Christian around to baptize him, and no water even if there were a Christian, and they, in their gasping breath, repent and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation, I'm convinced they'll be in heaven, though they were not baptized. They had no opportunity.
There are prisoners on death row who give their life to Christ and do not have a good opportunity, an adequate opportunity to be baptized in prison. And I believe we will see them in heaven if their repentance is genuine and they have not had opportunity to be baptized. You see, their failure to be baptized in this case does not reflect their wishes, does not reflect what's happening in their heart.
They may have an obedient faith that saves, a faith that motivates them to want to obey, but they simply, you know, they want to, but they can't. God knows. And these cases are important for us to realize that they do exist as exceptions.
Otherwise, we could get the impression that only baptized people can be saved. And then from that comes the natural reasoning, baptism is necessary for salvation. Maybe even baptism is the means of salvation, and some people have come that far.
There are some denominations that teach that you absolutely cannot be baptized, I mean, cannot be saved unless you're baptized. Furthermore, there are some that go so far as to say you can't be saved unless you're baptized by them, with the particular formula that they prefer. And there's some very narrow-mindedness in this matter, which I think does not reflect a full understanding of what salvation is based upon.
It's not based upon getting baptized, it's based upon faith alone. But, as I said, in almost every ideal circumstance, if a person has opportunity to be baptized after he's saved, and is informed that this is commanded, that's exactly what he will do, because his changed heart will incline him to want to do what he knows God wants him to do, and then he has opportunity to do. So, if you are a person, for instance, as yet unbaptized, because as of yet you did not know that baptism was one of the commands of Scripture, you cannot necessarily be faulted for that, although, of course, you know now, and you may wish to do something about it.
It's unlikely that any of us could plead that we've never had the opportunity to be baptized, since we live in lands where there's plenty of water, and plenty of churches, and plenty of Christians. You know, you don't even have to be baptized in a church. In my opinion, any Christian can baptize you anywhere.
Now, that, of course, is another issue, who can baptize. But, let me just show you what Scriptures are used by those who feel that water baptism is essential for salvation. There's about three Scriptures of significance to consider here.
In Mark 16, I made reference to this a moment ago, but did not make this particular point from it. Jesus said, He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned. Now, those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and there's simply no way that you're going to be saved if you repent in the middle of the Sahara Desert and have no opportunity to be baptized and die in that condition.
You're just lost. Too bad for you. You just didn't have a chance to be baptized, because you've got to be baptized to be saved, as far as they're concerned.
They argue this way. Jesus said, whoever believes and is baptized. So, it's not just believing, it's being baptized, too, that saves.
Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. But, one doesn't have to be too astute to notice that when he gave the other member of that statement, when he said, but whosoever does not believe shall be condemned, he did not say, whosoever is not baptized shall be condemned. It's clear when you read the whole statement that believing is the common denominator in the decision of whether a person is saved or condemned.
It's believing. Why does he mention baptism? Because baptism was the indicator that a person had come to believe, and it was so commonly the case that a person, as soon as he believed, in fact, I should say it was universally the case in the early church, that as soon as a person believed, they were led to baptism. That Jesus could speak of believing and being baptized almost as the same act, and the persons who had believed were the same people who had been baptized.
That group, those people who believe and who are baptized, which shows that they believe, are the saved group. The people who fail to believe are the condemned group. Now, what about the persons who believe but aren't baptized? If we took Jesus' word strictly, they would fall into a third category and not addressed.
They are not those who believe not because they do believe, but they're not those who believe and be baptized because they aren't baptized. Where do they stand? Does Jesus make a third category? I think not. The issue of salvation is faith.
Those who believe will be saved. In virtually every case, they will also be baptized because that is what their salvation will incline them to do if they are properly informed and have the opportunity. I do not believe that this statement of Jesus would overthrow all the other statements in the scripture that a person is saved by his faith.
Jesus himself, in another place, told the story of a publican and a Pharisee who prayed in the temple. One congratulated himself for his strict obedience to the law. The other, the publican, was so ashamed of his sin that he couldn't even lift his face to look at God.
He smote himself on the breast and said, Nothing more than God be merciful to me, a sinner. And Jesus said, That man went down to his house justified. Justification is what salvation is.
Getting justified. Jesus said, That man went home justified. All he did was say, God be merciful to me, a sinner.
Presumably, this was an expression of his faith and in the mercy of God. But he wasn't baptized. At least not at that moment.
Likewise, of course, we point out the household of Cornelius. They were saved before they were water baptized. That was followed immediately by water baptism.
But they received the spirit at that time. Another scripture that is used, however, for this is in Acts chapter 22. Acts chapter 22.
Oh, I do hope I can finish all this material in this session. There's so much. In Acts 22.16, Paul is repeating for a Jewish audience his story of his conversion.
And, of course, he was converted on the road to Damascus. So the first place he set foot after he was converted was in Damascus. And there, a man named Ananias, who was a resident of that city, came under orders from God to minister to him, to pray that he'd receive a sight, that he'd be filled with the Holy Spirit, and that he'd be water baptized.
Now, this is what we are told the man said to him. Ananias said to Paul in Acts 22.16, And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. The argument here is that Ananias understood baptism to be a washing away of sins.
And if this be so, then the person who has not been baptized has not yet had his sins washed away. He has not yet saved. It is in the act of baptism that one's sins are washed away.
Now, I personally do not agree with this exegesis of the passage. First of all, the Bible speaks elsewhere quite explicitly of the washing away of sins, and water is not said to be the medium of cleansing. In Hebrews 9.14, Hebrews 9.14 says, The blood of Jesus will cleanse your conscience from dead works.
The cleansing of sins is by the blood of Jesus, Hebrews 9.14. Likewise, 1 John 1.7 says, If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sins. It's the blood of Jesus that cleanses from all sins. We are not sprinkled with water for that cleansing, but according to 1 Peter 1.2, we are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus.
1 Peter 1.2. So, the cleansing from sin, the washing away from sin is not an act done with water, but with blood. And that's the blood of Jesus applied, not when we are water baptized, but when we confess our sins. Because John goes on to say in 1 John 1.9, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So, to introduce the idea here that it's water baptism that washes away sins, would seem to be in conflict with what the Bible teaches elsewhere. But, look at the passage in verse 16 here of Acts 22, carefully. There are three commands, in a sense, or four if you include the word arise.
There's the command, be baptized. There's the command, wash away your sins. And there's the command, calling on the name of the Lord.
Actually, what is it that washes away sins? Is it the be baptized and wash away your sins? Or is it wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord? Is it be baptized? Is it that clause? Or is it the clause that says calling on the name of the Lord that is explanatory of the expression wash away your sins? Which is it? Well, the passage could read just as naturally, arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord. So, there's a command to be baptized, but it is not identified necessarily with the washing away of sins. Calling on the name of the Lord is what is identified with the cleansing from sin.
This would agree, of course, with Romans chapter 10, where Paul is actually quoting from Joel in Romans 10, 13. Paul quotes Joel chapter 2, which says, For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That's exactly what Ananias told Paul to do.
Call on the name of the Lord. Romans says, Paul, the same guy writing later, says whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Ananias said, Wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.
Quite obviously, to anybody who does not have an agenda that would force another interpretation, Ananias was not teaching that baptism washes away sins, but that calling on the name of the Lord washes away sins. Now, the most difficult verse to answer, of those that are brought up to say that baptism is necessary for salvation, is in 1 Peter chapter 3. And I must confess, I myself have some trouble explaining this verse, but then I think so do most people, regardless of their view of baptism, it's a very difficult passage. In 1 Peter 3, beginning at verse 18, Peter says, For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
There is also an antitype, which means a fulfillment of the type, the washing, the going through the water was a type, and the antitype of that is baptism. He says, 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. Now, this statement that this now saves us, namely baptism now saves us, is probably the most blatant statement in Scripture that could be said to teach that baptism is a saving act and that it is necessary for salvation.
Not only is it necessary for salvation, it is the thing that saves. Now, I said everybody has trouble explaining this passage except people who think they understand what they don't. It is a difficult passage.
It is hard to know who the spirits in prison are. It is hard to know why reference is made to the eight who are saved through the ark and the wicked prior to that time as opposed to the wicked of all times. And there is a lot of other things questionable.
What does he mean when he says baptism saves us? He himself seems to try to modify or clarify it with a parenthesis where he says not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. If nothing else, that parenthesis seems to say it is not the washing of water, but what happens in the conscience that saves. When he says baptism now saves us, not the washing of the filth of the flesh, not the water part, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, the cleansing of the conscience by the blood of Christ.
That is what saves. But then why does he say baptism saves? I will give you my opinion. It is the best I can do.
I believe that in the minds of the early Christians and the apostles certain things were all associated with the experience of salvation. It was understood that a person when they were saved would repent of their sins, believe on Christ, be baptized in water, receive the Holy Spirit. These were all things that were the virtual universal experience of all Christians.
At the moment of conversion all these things transpired, one right after another. And it was probably common to speak of any combination of those things or any one of them as being related to the day they got saved or the moment of their salvation without trying to make a theological statement as to which of those things really was the effectual saving act. All the things were a complex of experiences that took place essentially at once or in rapid succession in the life of every believer.
Of every saved person it could say that he had repented. It could be said that he had believed on Christ. It could be said that he was baptized.
It could be said that he had received the Holy Spirit. Why? Because that was the common and universal practice that all these things were done. And the book of Acts would indicate this.
Now, it's interesting that in the book of Acts the people said, what must we do? In Acts chapter 2, verse 38, Peter said, repent and be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit. But he didn't mention faith. He didn't mention anything about faith.
In other places, he simply said, like in Acts 16, verse 31, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. He mentions faith but not the other things. Are we to take one of these verses in exclusion to others and say, this is the one thing that the Apostles saw as saving.
It's faith here, but over here it wasn't faith. It was repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and so forth. Or should we understand it in light of the development of the theology of justification found in the epistles and even in the sermons of the book of Acts and realize that in their understanding repentance, faith, baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit, all these things were part of what happened to every Christian.
It was assumed to be so. There were no Christians reading these epistles who were not baptized. And they were probably all baptized the very day of their salvation, probably immediately after they professed faith in Christ.
That was the regular practice. Therefore, if he wished to show that the salvation of the eight in the ark through the flood was a type of us being saved through Christ, either Christ or the church being the anti-type of the ark, he would naturally point to water baptism as the part of the saving experience, part of the conversion experience that most resembles going through the waters of the flood. What he's basically saying is that just as God judged the world previously through the flood, he's judging the world again.
And just as he saved some in an ark then, so he saves some now through Christ. And there's an interesting parallel there because those who are in the ark actually were saved through the water. Likewise, you in your conversion experience have gone through the water also in baptism.
And to say that baptism now saves us is not necessarily so much of a theological statement as an association of this particular act of obedience, which is a mark of their faith in their conversion, with going through the flood waters in Old Testament times. Now, one is certainly at liberty to say my explanation is weak and that one would prefer to take another interpretation. But I will say this.
If one takes the interpretation that baptism is in fact the saving thing, and that one cannot be saved without being baptized, then they run into far more problems with the Scripture than I run into with this particular verse. Because they have to explain away Paul's emphasis that it is faith alone that saves. They have to explain away things like the conversion and salvation of the thief on the cross.
They say, well, that was an exceptional case because Jesus personally granted him salvation. Well, didn't Jesus personally grant the disciples salvation? And yet I'm sure they were baptized. Or, as I mentioned, the household of Cornelius.
They were saved prior to being baptized. They were baptized, but that's not what saved them. They received the Holy Spirit before that.
In fact, look at Acts chapter 11 on that particular point. The story of the conversion of Cornelius' household is in Acts 10, but Peter is retelling the story in Acts chapter 11. I guess we could look at both places, the actual story, and then Peter's retelling of it.
In Acts 10, 47, it says Peter said when he saw what happened, Can anyone forbid water, meaning baptism, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? He said these people had received the Holy Spirit. How could you receive the Holy Spirit if you're not saved? You can't receive the Holy Spirit without receiving Christ. Peter said elsewhere, God gives His Holy Spirit to those who obey Him.
He said repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, the Holy Spirit's presence is the mark of true conversion. And so he said they've received the Holy Spirit, so we should baptize them.
They were saved already, and then they were baptized afterwards. In Acts chapter 11 and verse 17, when Peter is retelling the story to his critical friends in Jerusalem, he said if therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should withstand God? Now notice he didn't say God gave us this gift when we were baptized. God gave us this gift of salvation when we believed.
And God gave them the same gift, no doubt on the same basis of believing. He didn't say when they were baptized they got saved. He recognized that they were saved.
God had given them the same gift because of their belief, and therefore He couldn't withstand God by refusing to baptize them. So we can see that baptism was a sequel to salvation, but generally speaking, so closely related in the mind of the apostles that they would never let a time elapse between the time that the person was converted and the time they were baptized. Baptism was sort of the ceiling of the conversion experience and was so viewed as even necessary to consider a person part of the church and even could be spoken of so closely with salvation as Peter could say, baptism now saves you, but without meaning essentially that no one could be saved without it.
But meaning that baptism is so closely associated with the whole conversion process in the minds of the early Christians that you can talk that way about it. But when it gets down to being more exact, it's faith that saves you and baptism is simply an act of obedience that proceeds from faith. Now, I'm mindful of the clock and also the points I have yet to cover.
So, let me make a few more important points. First of all, in what name should a person be baptized? It hardly seems that this should be an issue. Jesus said in Matthew 28, 19, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
And that statement alone should settle the question. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the reason there is a question is because when you turn to the book of Acts and you see the cases where persons are baptized there by the Apostles, the very ones whom Jesus told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they don't use that name when they baptize.
They always baptize in the name of Jesus or in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. You'll never find it otherwise in the book of Acts. There's at least four or five times in the book of Acts that you read of persons being baptized in the name of Jesus.
The very first is the verse we've mentioned already, Acts 2, 38. Repent, Peter said, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And you shall receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Now, this is only the first of many. We find Philip in Acts chapter 8 baptizes in the name of Jesus. Paul in Acts chapter 19 baptizes in the name of Jesus.
And I forget, I think there's even one other case where it mentions people being baptized in the name of Jesus. So, there is no case in the book of Acts where anyone baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And this is what throws confusion on the question of which name do we use.
Do we use the name the apostles used and thus remain true to the apostolic understanding and tradition of the thing? Or do we use the name that Matthew recorded Jesus using, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Because of this discrepancy, as it were, in the data, there are some who think that the only proper formula is that which the apostles used. And that is to do it in the name of Jesus. Such people are sometimes referred to as Jesus-onlys.
They call themselves oneness people. They don't believe in the Trinity exactly. They believe only in Jesus.
And they think that you have to be baptized in the name of Jesus. And if you're baptized in any other name, including the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you have not been baptized in the sense that the apostles would have recognized. And you need to be to be saved, in their opinion.
In their opinion, you have to not only be baptized, you have to be baptized by them in the name of Jesus and no other name. And if not for these people holding this position, we wouldn't have to discuss the question of formulas. Because most Christians throughout history have simply baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
To resolve the difficulty, I would appeal to a close look at what Jesus said in Matthew 28, 19. He said, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
He did not indicate that there are three names, but one name. It is the name, singular, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, over in Colossians 2, 9, Paul said concerning Jesus, in Colossians 2, 9, in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily.
All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus, bodily, in bodily form. It is very probable, therefore, that the apostles, when they heard Jesus say that they should be baptized in the name of the Godhead, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that that name, in their opinion, was no other than the name of Jesus himself. So that when they did baptize in the book of Acts, they used the name Jesus, and in so doing, they considered themselves to be obedient to what Jesus had said.
Because the name, singular, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no doubt was identified in their minds with the name of Jesus. If we don't argue it this way, then we must assume that they deliberately disobeyed Jesus. Only a few weeks earlier, Jesus had told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and, you know, exactly, you know, 50 days later, or 40 days later, actually, no, 10 days later, excuse me, 10 days later, on the day of Pentecost, they actually baptized people in the name of Jesus.
Why would the apostles use a different formula than that which Jesus spoke, unless they understood the two to be interchangeable? Just two different ways of saying the same thing. This, I take to be the probable explanation. And if it is so, it may sound like I come down on the side of the Jesus only, but I don't.
For one thing, they're too strict and legalistic. I personally think that it doesn't matter which of the two is used. If you are baptized in the name of Jesus, you've been baptized with the very formula the apostles themselves used and uttered.
If you've been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you were baptized in the very formula Jesus himself uttered about the subject. What does it matter? If both are two ways of saying the same thing, then God is not such a legalist, I think, that he's going to be concerned about the words more than the meaning of the words. Paul says as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death.
We weren't baptized into Moses or Paul or Apostles, we were baptized into Jesus. Whether the name uttered, the formula uttered, was the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or the name of Jesus, either one has biblical precedent and they must, therefore, not be significantly different in meaning. I personally was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit just to make everybody happy.
When I baptize people, I baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, Jesus Christ, and in the name of the Holy Spirit. So that way you get it all in there. And then no one can complain that they weren't baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or they weren't baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
To me, it's petty. To me, it's splitting hairs. But it is some hair splitting that really does go on and that's why it was something to address here.
And when we ask which formula, my answer would be either. Either one is fine. Either one is obedient.
And no doubt the Apostles treated both formulas as interchangeable. That is my conclusion. You may reach another if you like.
Now the question, much more volatile, as to who should be baptized. Now there's two opinions essentially on this. One would be only people who have come to believe in Christ.
The other would be those who have come to believe in Christ as well as their entire family, including their infant children. Now the argument for baptism of infants, and that doctrine is called pedobaptism, if you want to discuss it with theologians, it is called pedobaptism. P-E, actually it's P-A-E-D-O, baptism.
Which simply means baptism of infants. And the pedobaptists, who baptize infants, believe that the children of believers, by virtue of their relationship to their believing parents, share in the privileges of being in the covenant community. And therefore should take the symbol of involvement in the covenant community, as well as their parents, in being water baptized.
Now it is explained this way. The Jews in the Old Testament were under the Old Covenant. The mark of the Old Covenant was circumcision.
We in the New Covenant have a different mark of the covenant, and that is baptism. And baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. It is clear that the Jews not only were permitted, but were commanded to circumcise their infants so that they too could be included in the covenant community.
It follows, therefore, if baptism is the New Testament counterpart of circumcision, then believers have not only the privilege, but also the responsibility of baptizing their children so that they might be included also in the covenant community. Now in both cases, it is argued, the Jewish child who is circumcised at infancy, or the Christian child in a Christian home who is baptized at infancy, still has to make a decision later on in life as to whether they will remain in the covenant community. But for the time being, they are included by virtue of their parents' obedience in this matter.
And they say it can hardly be the case that the new covenant would have fewer privileges than the old. And since the old covenant believers were allowed to include their children in the covenant as designated by circumcising them, certainly we are permitted no less privilege, and we should include our children also in the covenant by a water baptism. This is the argument.
There is one scripture, as far as I know, the only one that is ever used to support this idea. It is in Acts chapter 16. And there we read of the conversion of the jailer in Philippi when Paul and Silas were imprisoned there and the earthquake opened the doors and the man was about to commit suicide.
Paul said, No, don't. And the man said, What must I do to be saved? And Paul says, Well, in verse 31, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now, here is where you get it.
He and all his family were baptized. This is, to my knowledge, the only biblical reference in the New Testament ever pointed to to suggest infants should be baptized because this man was saved and Paul baptized the guy's whole family, which suggests that when you get saved, your entire family has the right to be baptized. However, this reads much too much into the passage.
We are not told anywhere that the man had any infant children who were baptized, first of all. And secondly, we are told, we've already read it in verse 32, that they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. Presumably all in his household were able to hear and be preached to and understand the word of the Lord.
And certainly that's the case because in verse 34 it says, And when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them and they rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. So he believed and his whole household believed. That's why his whole household were baptized, because they all believed.
There's no indicator here that there were any infants baptized on this occasion, or the fact that this man's whole family being baptized was a proof that every Christian should baptize every member of their family, including infants. This man's whole family were baptized because they all believed. And being baptized was the right thing for believers.
The question is, is it the right thing for infants? Now, the argument from circumcision in the Old Testament being applied to infants and applying that to the baptism of infants simply doesn't wash, in my opinion. For one thing, it starts with the assumption that water baptism is the New Testament counterpart of circumcision. That circumcision was the type and water baptism is the antitype or the counterpart of it in the New.
Now, that's where the argument begins. That is assumed from the start. Baptism is the counterpart of circumcision.
I do not agree with this. Circumcision is a type of something, and it does have an antitype in the New Testament, but the antitype to circumcision is not water baptism. Does anyone know what it is? Circumcision of the heart.
In the Old Testament, circumcision of the flesh was the outward symbol of, in the New Testament, circumcision of the heart, a spiritual thing, not a ritual, but something that takes place in the heart. Bearing God's mark in your heart instead of on your flesh is what it really amounts to. Now, those who are truly saved and in the covenant do bear that mark.
They are circumcised in the heart. Paul said in Philippians 3.3, writing to a largely Gentile audience, in fact, Philippi was one of the most Gentile cities where Paul started a church. There weren't even enough Jews in that city to have a synagogue.
So certainly the church was almost entirely made up of Gentiles. And he said to them in Philippians 3.3, We are the circumcision, meaning himself and his Gentiles readers who had not been physically circumcised. He said, We are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.
Not one word to baptism there, being the true circumcision for the Christian. It's all spiritual. We worship God in the spirit.
We rejoice in Christ Jesus. We put no confidence in the flesh. That's the true circumcision.
Paul said elsewhere in Romans 2, verses 28 and 29, Romans 2, 28 and 29, Paul said, He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward and of the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and that is circumcision which is of the heart. Now, obviously, Paul considered that outward circumcision practiced by the Jews did have a New Testament counterpart.
But that New Testament counterpart was not water baptism. It was a heart thing. The Jews bore God's mark on their bodies in the form of circumcision, but not in their hearts.
The Christian does not bear the mark on their body, but on his heart or her heart. Being in God's covenant is a heart thing now, not a physical thing. So I would disagree right from the outset with the presupposition that water baptism is the biblical counterpart of circumcision.
No, there is a biblical counterpart, but it isn't baptism, it's heart circumcision. But even if we agreed, for the sake of argument, with this first supposition, this idea that in fact baptism is the counterpart of circumcision, I don't agree with this, but suppose I did believe it, and suppose it could be demonstrated biblically, would it still follow that we should baptize our infants? No, it would not. Even though the Jews baptized their infants, it would not, in principle, suggest that we should baptize ours.
The reason is a Jewish baby born of Jewish parents was born Jewish. And being Jewish put him into the covenant community, which was a covenant community based upon ethnicity, being of the right background, the right genealogy, the right ethnic group. Therefore, since a baby Jew was born a Jew, he could be circumcised as a Jew.
However, if two Christian parents have a baby, that baby is not born a Christian. That baby is born a heathen. You can baptize that baby, but you'll just have a wet heathen.
You won't have a Christian. And therefore, there is not a continuous logic in that argument. It is true that Christians should bear the mark of the New Covenant just as Jews bore the mark of the Old Covenant.
However, the mark of the New Covenant is not an outward thing. It's in the heart. The way they live, the way their mind has been transformed, the way the law of God is in their hearts, that is the mark that they're really participants in the New Covenant, not the other.
So I do not agree with the basic arguments in favor of infant baptism. Furthermore, the Bible always suggests that baptism follows conversion, is not prior to it. Jesus said, as we saw in Mark 16, 16, Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.
Believing is mentioned first. Baptism second. He didn't say whoever is baptized and later believes will be saved.
Furthermore, Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, another verse we've already seen in Acts 2.38, said, Repent and be baptized. So repentance comes before baptism and believing comes before baptism. There is never any record in the entire Bible that baptism was administered or commanded to be administered to anyone who had not first repented and believed.
It's always they believed first, repented first, and baptized second. Therefore, to baptize someone who has not first repented and believed is a practice that has no warrant in Scripture and probably communicates a wrong message. Let me make one final point here.
We're running out of time faster than I had wished. The question would remain then, if you have been baptized as an infant, obviously prior to your conversion, and have since been converted, should you be baptized again? Or should you just figure, well, now I'm a convert, now I'm a real Christian, I was baptized back then, so I'll just figure I've been baptized and I'm a believer and I've been baptized. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to put any trips on anybody, and I always leave this up to the conscience of every individual, but there is a scriptural precedent that would seem to be applicable if you're interested.
It's in Acts 19. For Paul encountered in Ephesus twelve men who had been baptized previously in John's baptism. They had been baptized with John's baptism, but Paul preached to them about Jesus, and it says in verse 5, Acts 19.5, when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
In other words, they got baptized again. Why? Because they considered that their first baptism was not really a Christian baptism at all. Now that they were real Christians, they would obey Jesus and have a Christian baptism.
Their first baptism was sub-Christian. If you are of the opinion that infant baptism is not what the Bible describes as Christian baptism, and yet you've had such a baptism, you might decide, along with these people under Paul's guidance, that what you had was not Christian baptism. And if you've come to faith since that time, that perhaps you should be baptized after your conversion, because when you were baptized the first time, you weren't yet converted, were you? And therefore, you weren't really baptized in the biblical sense of the word.
This is up to everyone to decide for themselves before God as the Holy Spirit leads you, I would say. In other words, I'm not going to put anything on you about this, but if you're lacking in biblical guidance on the matter, I think that this precedent is an interesting one. Because there is a case, these people were not baptized as infants, but they were baptized with a sub-Christian, sub-normal baptism.
And therefore, once they became believers, they got baptized again with a normal baptism, and one by extrapolation could suggest that if one was baptized as an infant, that being a sub-Christian or sub-normal baptism, then since becoming a Christian, being baptized would be advisable or the obedient thing to do. I'll leave it at that. There was actually one other question I wanted to answer.
I didn't have time for it. We have to quit here. And so, we've certainly spent enough time probably on water baptism now.
We'll move on to other things in the next lecture of this series. .

Series by Steve Gregg

Judges
Judges
Steve Gregg teaches verse by verse through the Book of Judges in this 16-part series, exploring its historical and cultural context and highlighting t
2 Peter
2 Peter
This series features Steve Gregg teaching verse by verse through the book of 2 Peter, exploring topics such as false prophets, the importance of godli
Is Calvinism Biblical? (Debate)
Is Calvinism Biblical? (Debate)
Steve Gregg and Douglas Wilson engage in a multi-part debate about the biblical basis of Calvinism. They discuss predestination, God's sovereignty and
Leviticus
Leviticus
In this 12-part series, Steve Gregg provides insightful analysis of the book of Leviticus, exploring its various laws and regulations and offering spi
Sermon on the Mount
Sermon on the Mount
Steve Gregg's 14-part series on the Sermon on the Mount deepens the listener's understanding of the Beatitudes and other teachings in Matthew 5-7, emp
Introduction to the Life of Christ
Introduction to the Life of Christ
Introduction to the Life of Christ by Steve Gregg is a four-part series that explores the historical background of the New Testament, sheds light on t
Ezekiel
Ezekiel
Discover the profound messages of the biblical book of Ezekiel as Steve Gregg provides insightful interpretations and analysis on its themes, propheti
What Are We to Make of Israel
What Are We to Make of Israel
Steve Gregg explores the intricate implications of certain biblical passages in relation to the future of Israel, highlighting the historical context,
2 Kings
2 Kings
In this 12-part series, Steve Gregg provides a thorough verse-by-verse analysis of the biblical book 2 Kings, exploring themes of repentance, reform,
The Tabernacle
The Tabernacle
"The Tabernacle" is a comprehensive ten-part series that explores the symbolism and significance of the garments worn by priests, the construction and
More Series by Steve Gregg

More on OpenTheo

Is Morality Determined by Society?
Is Morality Determined by Society?
#STRask
June 26, 2025
Questions about how to respond to someone who says morality is determined by society, whether our evolutionary biology causes us to think it’s objecti
Licona and Martin Talk about the Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Licona and Martin Talk about the Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Risen Jesus
May 21, 2025
In today’s episode, we have a Religion Soup dialogue from Acadia Divinity College between Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin on whether Jesus physica
God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
#STRask
May 15, 2025
Questions about how God became so judgmental if he didn’t do anything to become God, and how we can think the flood really happened if no definition o
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
#STRask
June 5, 2025
Questions about how to respond to a family member who believes Zodiac signs determine personality and what to say to a co-worker who believes aliens c
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Risen Jesus
June 4, 2025
The following episode is part two of the debate between atheist philosopher Dr. Evan Fales and Dr. Mike Licona in 2014 at the University of St. Thoman
If Sin Is a Disease We’re Born with, How Can We Be Guilty When We Sin?
If Sin Is a Disease We’re Born with, How Can We Be Guilty When We Sin?
#STRask
June 19, 2025
Questions about how we can be guilty when we sin if sin is a disease we’re born with, how it can be that we’ll have free will in Heaven but not have t
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Knight & Rose Show
April 19, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Heritage Foundation policy expert Dr. Jay Richards to discuss policy and culture. Jay explains how economic fre
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
#STRask
June 16, 2025
Question about whether or not people with dementia have free will and are morally responsible for the sins they commit.   * Do people with dementia h
Can a Deceased Person’s Soul Live On in the Recipient of His Heart?
Can a Deceased Person’s Soul Live On in the Recipient of His Heart?
#STRask
May 12, 2025
Questions about whether a deceased person’s soul can live on in the recipient of his heart, whether 1 Corinthians 15:44 confirms that babies in the wo
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Risen Jesus
June 11, 2025
In this episode, we hear from Dr. Evan Fales as he presents his case against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and responds to Dr. Licona’s writi
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate
Risen Jesus
June 25, 2025
In today’s episode, Dr. Mike Licona debates Dr. Pieter Craffert at the University of Johannesburg. While Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the b
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Four: Licona Responds and Q&A
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Four: Licona Responds and Q&A
Risen Jesus
June 18, 2025
Today is the final episode in our four-part series covering the 2014 debate between Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Evan Fales. In this hour-long episode,
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Bible Study: Choices and Character in James, Part 1
Knight & Rose Show
June 21, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose explore chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of James. They discuss the book's author, James, the brother of Jesus, and his mar
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Risen Jesus
May 14, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss their differing views of Jesus’ claim of divinity. Licona proposes that “it is more proba
Is It Problematic for a DJ to Play Songs That Are Contrary to His Christian Values?
Is It Problematic for a DJ to Play Songs That Are Contrary to His Christian Values?
#STRask
July 10, 2025
Questions about whether it’s problematic for a DJ on a secular radio station to play songs with lyrics that are contrary to his Christian values, and