A Study Concerning Baptism

INTRODUCTION

Few subjects are as discussed and argued about in the religious world today as is the subject of baptism. People argue its necessity, its meaning, its purpose, its method, and just about every other aspect of it. All of this goes to show that it is a very misunderstood Bible topic. Because this is true, a study concerning it will always be important and relevant.

Common sense tells us several things concerning the arguments concerning baptism: 1) When you have one fellow claiming that baptism does not have anything to do with a person’s salvation and another claiming that it does, they cannot both be right; 2) When one person claims that the command to baptize is fulfilled by sprinkling some water on the candidate’s head and the other person claims that baptism is only administered properly when the candidate is immersed, they cannot both be right; 3) When one preacher claims that a person needs to be baptized to show that his sins have already been forgiven and another preacher claims that the same person needs baptism in order that his sins may be forgiven, they cannot both be right. We will use the Scriptures to examine and answer these and other arguments as we go on.

Sometimes a person will ask something to the effect of, “What’s the big deal? You believe one way and I’ll believe another.” While we all have the “right” to believe whatever we want to believe, that does not mean what we believe is correct. That does not mean God will accept it just because we have the “right” to believe it. This is a simple thing; if we believe something that does not coincide with the truth that God’s Word teaches, then one of us is wrong, and it is certainly not God’s Word! More and more these days I find my mind turning to Paul’s words concerning his countrymen in Romans 10:1-3 where he says, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”

A person can be honestly mistaken. After all, these folks that Paul was writing about had a definite zeal for God. However, zeal without knowledge does not do any good, and in fact may do a great deal of damage as Paul showed in the Romans 10:1-3 passage. Yes, a person can be honestly mistaken. However, I am a firm believer that when the honestly mistaken individual is confronted with the truth of God’s Word, one of two things is going to happen: 1) he will stop being mistaken; or 2) he will stop being honest.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible could not be any clearer concerning the subject of baptism. It is not a difficult teaching, and it is not an ambiguous one. The Bible says what it says on the subject of baptism very plainly and understandably, which will be made quite clear as we continue on.

The first section of this booklet is given over to study on the subject of baptism. Its purpose, meaning, symbolism, and method will be discussed. During our discussion of the various verses dealing with baptism, arguments will be answered from those who claim that it is not necessary for one’s salvation. Arguments will also be made proving that it is. We will also examine who is and who is not a candidate for baptism. The last section of this booklet is given over to questions and answers concerning baptism. Please read carefully and prayerfully. Examine the verses that are set forth and see if they really do teach what this writer says they teach. If they do not, please contact me using the numbers on the back page and show me how and why I have interpreted God’s Word incorrectly. If I am indeed wrong on such an important subject, you would be a friend to me to point it out. Perhaps we may help one another in our Bible study. Now on to the subject at hand.

The Purpose of Baptism -- Examining The Verses

(Not every verse dealing with baptism will be examined but many of them will. We will examine more than enough verses to prove conclusively that baptism is indeed “for (in order to receive) the remission (or forgiveness) of sins” and absolutely essential should one wish to become a Christians and thus be saved.)

To me, one of the greatest mysteries of the “Christian” world is how so many folks can read a passage like Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”, then turn right around and tell someone who is seeking salvation that baptism has nothing to do with it. I must admit to you that I have not the faintest idea how a person can accept passages that teach belief and repentance for salvation at face value, and yet reject all the verses that teach baptism for salvation. At what point did the plan of salvation became so subjective? When did it become acceptable to pick and choose whatever a person likes about the plan of salvation while throwing out everything else?

Is baptism essential for one’s salvation? If words have any meaning at all then it would seem to me that Mark 16:16 says it absolutely is! Even the order of Mark 16:16 makes it very plain. Believe—baptized—saved. Yet so many people want to focus solely on the last part of Mark 16:16 which says, “But whoever does not believe will be condemned.” They read this and they loudly proclaim, “See! If you don’t believe then you will be lost. Thus, baptism cannot be necessary for salvation.” I generally ask the person who makes this statement, “Would you like to be saved or lost?” You see, Mark 16:16 gives us both sets of instructions. If you want to be saved, you need to believe and be baptized. If you would prefer to be lost, then just don’t bother believing.

Let’s see if we can make this even clearer. Suppose I had within my possession one million dollars, and I decided to advertise in the paper that I would give this money to whoever came to me. All they had to do was believe me and be baptized to receive this money. Now, what does a person have to do to receive that money and what is the order? Believe—baptized—money. What does Mark 16:16 say a person must do to be saved and what is the order? Believe—baptized—saved. Is it really that difficult to see?

Consider something else with me. For those folks who claim that since baptism is not mentioned in the latter half of this verse it cannot be essential in our salvation, let’s think about a comparison. Let’s leave the construction of the verse the same but change a few words around to make the verse refer to school -- “He who enrolls and attends will be educated, but whoever does not enroll will not be educated.” Who will make the argument that since attending was not mentioned in the second part of this sentence it is not necessary to learning? Common sense and personal experience tells us that a person must attend classes if he is going to learn. It is not enough to simply enroll. Why is this so easy to understand here but not in the actual verse itself?

Occasionally you come across those who feel the force of this verse, and they know that they cannot get around it. These folks try a different tactic. They will point out that some manuscripts actually end at Mark 16:8. Instead of doing any actual research into it they just automatically assume that Mark 16:9-20 is not really authentic, and they teach that position to others. They seem to forget that Mark 16:16 is part of the Great Commission and is recorded in other places. For example, in Matthew 28:19 Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is the exact same conversation as recorded in Mark 16:16. Thus, their argument is immediately rendered invalid and useless.

Let us consider one more argument on this verse before moving on. Some claim that the baptism of Mark 16:16 does not refer to water baptism but to Holy Spirit baptism. There is an immediate problem with this. First of all, where in the Bible is a person ever commanded to receive Holy Spirit baptism? It only happened two times (Acts 1:5-2:2-4 and Acts 10:44-11:15). Secondly, who is there who is able to administer Holy Spirit baptism? There is not a person on the face of this earth who can do that because it came directly from God, as the verses referenced make abundantly clear. No, my friends, Mark 16:16 refers to water baptism and no other kind.

Acts 2:38 says, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Here is another verse giving those who advocate that baptism is not essential to one’s salvation a great deal of trouble. Several arguments have been made in an effort to explain why Peter did not mean what he said. Let us examine them.

The first thing that we want to discuss is the word “for.” This word comes from the Greek preposition eis. There are those who allow their prejudices to creep in and thus claim that eis means “because of.” That would have Peter saying that they needed to be baptized because their sins had already been forgiven. I am not a Greek scholar, but I do have their work at my disposal. I have no intention of boring you with Greek so I will simply say that the foremost authorities of the Greek language tell us that eis looks ahead to a result. Do not take my word for this, either. Regardless of what church you are affiliated with, there is a very good chance that your preacher has the work of such men as Thayer (generally recognized as the Greek authority) in his office. Ask him to show you what these Greek scholars say about eis in the context of Acts 2:38. The results will overwhelmingly show that eis looks ahead, not back.

Now, having said all of that, let’s examine Acts 2:38. Actually, in order to truly understand verse 38 in its context we need to go back to verse 37 and find out what prompted the people to ask a certain question. In verse 37 we read the following, “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” They wanted to know what they needed to do. Do about what? I submit to you that they were asking what they needed to do to have their sins forgiven. Others claim that they were asking what they needed to do because their sins had been forgiven. Which position fits the context?

To answer this question we need to examine some of what Peter preached to these people in Acts 2. One of the major themes of Peter’s great sermon in Acts 2 was the guilt of those to whom he was preaching. Of what were they guilty? Nothing less then arresting, beating, and crucifying the Son of God! Very early on in his sermon Peter mentions all of the signs and miracles that had attested to the truthfulness of Jesus’ claims. He reminds them that they had actually seen these signs and miracles. Did they respond in faith? No! They ignored the signs and killed Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22-23). In fact, notice the last thing Peter says to them before they ask the question of verse 37, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

My friends, when we come to verse 37 we are witnessing a group of individuals who had been “cut to the heart”. I am here to tell you that they had not been cut to the heart because they understood they had been forgiven of their sins. Instead, they had been cut to the heart because they were feeling the tremendous weight and unbearable sting of their horrible sin! They were not asking Peter and the other apostles what they needed to do now that they were already saved; they were asking what they needed to do to remove this sin from their soul and become saved! Peter told them exactly what to do in the very next verse. Read all of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and you will find that this conclusion is unavoidable. In fact, to give any other interpretation to their question in verse 37 or to Peter’s instruction in verse 38 is to ignore the context and force of Peter’s sermon entirely.

Let us set forth another argument for those who claim Peter was telling them to be baptized because their sins were already forgiven. You know, we find the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” in another place and from the mouth of our Lord. It is at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Notice what Jesus said in Matthew 26:28, “For this is the blood of My covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Let’s think about this for a moment. Did Jesus leave the glory of heaven, take upon Himself the flesh of man, and die a cruel death on a cross because man’s sins had already been forgiven? I have actually only corresponded with one individual who was willing to take this utterly ridiculous position. However, I must give him credit for consistency for he understood that he must take this position if he claims “for the forgiveness of sins” means because sins have already been forgiven in Acts 2:38. For those who recognize the folly of this position in regard to Jesus’ words here, while at the same time taking this very position with Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, I have one simple question: why does the exact same phrase mean “in order to receive the forgiveness of sins” in Matthew 26:28 but “because sins have been forgiven” in Acts 2:38? Other than the fact that it fits a preconceived idea, can you give an answer?

We want to make one more argument from Acts 2:38. Those who claim that Peter was telling the folks in Jerusalem to be baptized because their sins had already been forgiven must also, in order to be consistent and grammatical, claim that he was telling them to repent for the same reason. That doesn’t seem right, does it? Repentance is a change of mind toward sin and a determination to live in accord with that change of mind. My friends, that does not happen after a person is saved but before. Is this something that we just make up? No, for it is the teaching of the Lord Himself. In Luke 13:3 and 5 Jesus said, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Our Lord makes it very clear that repentance precedes one’s salvation. Peter shows us that baptism does as well.

So, after examining Acts 2:38, why not admit that Peter said exactly what he meant to say? If you wanted to tell someone that repentance and baptism were essential for having their sins forgiven, how would you say it? Wouldn’t “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” just about do it?

Let us now examine Acts 22:16. The verse says, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” We need to set the stage here. In Acts 22 the apostle Paul is recounting the story of his conversion to the Jews who had, only moments before, attempted to kill him for allegedly bringing a Gentile inside the Temple. Paul was saved by the “tribune of the cohort” who, along with centurions and soldiers, rescued Paul from the mob. Just before Paul was carried away into the barracks, he requested to address the mob. His request was granted and he began to make his defense.

By the time we come to verse 11, Paul has started to talk about Ananias and the role he played in Paul’s (Saul at the time) conversion. This culminates in verse 16 and the words we read a moment ago. If Paul wished to have his sins forgiven, then he was going to have to do it through baptism. Read the verse again and see if that is not what is says. A person would need help to miss the significance of Ananias’s words in that verse. Unfortunately, there are far too many who are more than willing to offer that help.

The arguments made by those who claim baptism does not wash away one’s sins are incredibly weak when it comes to this particular verse. The only argument made that is even worth mentioning comes from verse 13. That verse records Ananias as he said, “Brother Saul, receive your sight.” The argument is made that since Ananias addressed Saul as “brother”, then Saul must have already been a Christian. Does that conclusion necessarily follow? Not at all, as this very chapter makes clear! At the beginning of chapter 22, notice Paul’s words to the Jews who only moments before sought to take his life, “Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you.” These men that Paul was addressing were not Christians. But wait a minute; did he not address them as “brothers”? Why would Paul have addressed these men as brothers if they were not his fellow Christians? He did so because they were his countrymen! Ananias and Paul were also countrymen. Thus, there is not necessarily a spiritual connection when Ananias refers to Saul as “brother”.

Consider this also: when this event actually occurred, notice what is said of Saul in Acts 9:11, “And the Lord said to him (the “him” being Ananias), ‘Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying.’” What was Saul doing? He was praying! Do you not suppose that in the course of his prayers he had proclaimed his belief in the Lord and cried out for the salvation of his soul? According to what many religious leaders claim today, the apostle Paul should have already been saved and had his sins removed. According to their teaching it should have happened while he was praying. According to Scripture, it didn’t. In fact, Acts 22:16 makes it clear that Ananias told Paul to stop praying and get up to be baptized. Why? Because his sins were still on his soul. If this is not the case, then please explain why Ananias did not really mean what he so clearly said?

There is not a clearer verse stating the importance of baptism for a person’s salvation than 1 Peter 3:21. The verse reads, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In the previous verse Peter reminded Christians of Noah and his family being saved while all others had drowned. Just as they were saved at that time, baptism now saves a person. If you wanted to stress the importance of baptism in relation to a person’s salvation, how would you do it? Would not “Baptism...now saves you” just about do the trick?

I cannot help but be reminded of the serpent so long ago in the Garden of Eden. Remember that God had given Adam and Eve permission to eat of every tree in that Garden save the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He told them that the day they ate of it they would die (Genesis 2:16-17). However, along came the serpent and, in reference to eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, said, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). How is this any different than a person telling someone that baptism does not now save them when Peter so clearly says that it does in 1 Peter 3:21?

Here is something else to consider concerning this verse -- so many times people will say something like, “If baptism is necessary for salvation, why didn’t God just come right out and say, ‘He who is not baptized shall be condemned?’” I would suggest that God did say that only not in those exact words. Let’s use some common sense here. If the Holy Spirit, working through Peter, said, “Baptism now saves you”, what would the opposite of that statement be? Would it not be that failure to be baptized would condemn? If not, why not? If a professor said to his student, “Passing this exam will allow you to graduate”, would the student be able to claim that the professor never said failing to pass the exam would not allow him to graduate? The answer, of course, is no. We all understand that this was implied in what he did say. Why abandon common sense and established understanding of language when the topic of discussion becomes spiritual?

Now let us consider Galatians 3:27. The verse says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” What makes this verse so interesting is that the one right before it, verse 26, is a favorite verse of the one who teaches that baptism is not essential for salvation. Verse 26 says, “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” Triumphantly they exclaim, “See, it says right here that in Christ we are sons of God through faith!” They are absolutely correct but they fail to focus on the proper question: How does a person go about “getting in” Christ so that he can be a son of God, through faith?

It is very significant that verse 27 begins with the word “for”. This connects verse 27 to the preceding verse and actually explains to us why verse 26 is true. The person is in Christ and a son of God through faith because he has been baptized into Christ. If that is not what “for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” means, then I confess that I just do not understand the meaning of words.

Now, who is prepared to claim that a person is saved when he has not put on Christ? As we have seen from verse 26, it is the one who is in Christ that is a son of God through faith. If a person is not in Christ because he has not put Him on in baptism (and verse 27 showed us that baptism is how one “puts on” Christ), and he cannot be a son of God through faith because he never put Christ on to begin with, what reasoning would possibly cause us to arrive at the conclusion that he could ever be saved while in that condition? Whatever the reasoning is, we can rest absolutely assured that it is faulty.

Titus 3:4-5 says, “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” Here we come to another favorite passage of the proponent that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. However, he finds no shelter in these verses.

Often those who teach that baptism is not necessary for a person’s salvation will claim that baptism is a work of righteousness done by us, and Titus 3:5 says works of righteousness do not save us. There are a few problems with this. First of all, where does the Bible say that baptism is a meritorious work? Where is the verse saying that if we must receive baptism to have our sins washed away, it becomes a work whereby we are seeking to earn or merit our salvation? Since so many religious leaders of the day make such claims, shouldn’t they be able to produce at least one verse along those lines?

Is some type of work being done in baptism? Yes it is. Who is the one doing the work? Colossians 2:11-12 will answer that question for us: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” It was the power of God that raised Christ from the dead, and it is the power of God that spiritually raises us from the dead as well. My friends, God is the one at work when a person is baptized. To deny this is to deny the very plain teaching of Scripture.

Another difficulty for the one claiming that baptism is not necessary for salvation is found in Titus 3:5. Baptism is right there in the verse! Not only is it there, it is also shown to be how we are saved. The “washing of regeneration” refers to a washing that is connected to regeneration. This is a reference to baptism for, as we have already noticed from other passages, it is in baptism that man has his sins forgiven and “puts on” Christ.

One of the greatest and most damaging problems in the “Christian” world today is the sad failure to distinguish between “works of merit” and “works of obedience”. The fact is that after each one of us sinned for the first time, it was never again possible for us to earn our salvation. We had already fallen and sinned against God; anything in the way of salvation from that point on would have to rely solely upon the mercy and compassion of the Lord (Romans 3:23-24). Yet does this change the fact that God has set forth some conditions which man must meet in order to be saved? Not at all. Who denies that it was God’s grace that caused the walls of Jericho to tumble even though it was conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to God’s command to march around the city 13 times (Joshua 6)? Who denies that it was God’s grace that saved Noah and his family although it was conditioned upon Noah building the ark (Genesis 6:9-18)? Who denies that it was God’s grace that led to His making the wonderful promises to Abraham although it was conditioned upon Abraham leaving his home and going to place that God would show him (Genesis 12:1-4)? Why then is this such a hard thing for people to grasp today? Does the condition of belief and repentance make God’s gift of salvation any less a gift? I know of no one who says that. Why then does the condition of baptism? Suppose that I was offering you a brand new pool table as a gift. The only thing that you had to do was drive over to my house with your truck, load it up, take it back home, and set it up. Do these conditions make this pool table any less of a gift from me to you? Who is there who would answer that it does? How then is God’s free gift of salvation any less a gift by His condition of our receiving it through baptism, any more than by our having to believe and repent?

The word “works” has become taboo in much of the religious world today and it is all because of this failure to distinguish between what is a work of merit (trying to earn our salvation on the basis of our own goodness and righteousness) and what is a work of obedience (such as obeying the command to be baptized for the remission of one’s sins). As James said, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” Is James teaching meritorious works for salvation? Certainly not! James is simply instructing Christians to do the very thing Paul instructed the Philippian brethren to do in Philippians 2:12, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Working out our own salvation corresponds to Christ’s complete obedience in verse 8 and, in the grand scheme, our final salvation corresponds to Christ’s exaltation from verse 11. But as this verse says, it is something that the Christian will have to work at.

My friends, let us use some common sense. Why do you give commands if not to be obeyed? When you tell your children to do something, do you accept argument and reasoning from them to avoid doing what you have told them to do? Why then should we expect God to accept that from His children? Be very careful and try to avoid those who tell you that obeying a command of God is not important. They do not have that right, particularly when the apostle John said, “Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Never let someone convince you that obeying God means you are attempting to earn or merit your salvation. What you are doing is obeying. Anything less will be terribly punished ultimately (2 Thessalonians 1:5-8).

At this point we have examined more then enough verses to show us the necessity of baptism in relation to our salvation. We have seen that is for the “remission (forgiveness) of sins.” We have seen that it is for the washing away of sins. We have seen that it the means whereby one “puts on” Christ. We have seen that baptism “now saves you.” Let’s take a few moments at this point to discuss baptism and Romans 6.

Romans 6 and Baptism

Everyone I know who claims to worship Christ agrees that it is His blood that washes away sins. After all, Hebrews 9:13-14 says, “For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” The first question with which we want to deal, and one which Romans 6:3 answers, is where and when do we come in contact with the blood of Christ? Jesus shed His blood in His death, and it is into this death that we are baptized. Romans 6:3 says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Thus, we come in contact with the blood of Christ when we are baptized into His death.

Let us examine now Romans 6:4-7: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.” Now just consider what we read there. In baptism we are spiritually participating with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. When we are baptized into Christ, we are uniting with Him in a burial like His. But what is buried? Verse 6 said that it is our “old self” and the “body of sin”. Consider the significance of those words! The one who claims that baptism is not essential for salvation must of necessity claim that a person may be saved while still maintaining that old body of sin! Yet verse 7 told us that it is the one who dies that has been set free from sin. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then it is possible to be saved while still maintaining the body of sin and being a slave to sin. That cannot be!

Verses 4 and 5 really show us the beauty of baptism. When we submit to our Lord’s will for us to be baptized for the remission of our sins, the old man of sin is crucified just as Christ was, and that sinner who was lost before joining in the likeness of Christ’s death and burial comes up from that water in the likeness of His resurrection, a new creature and enjoying newness of life.

In verses 15-23 the apostle Paul drives the point home further in relation to sin. Because Christians have been baptized and had their sins washed away, crucifying the “old man” of sin, they must no longer live as slaves to sin. They are able to do this through the “renewing of their mind” (Romans 12:2). Because they have “put on” Christ they are now Christians. As such they are able to ask God for wisdom and strength in times of study and trial (James 1:2-5) and rest in full assurance that God is listening and willing to help if the Christian asks in faith. Also, it is now possible for them to do what the Hebrew writer instructs in Hebrews 4:16, “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Please examine Romans 6 for yourself. Read it carefully, laying any preconceived ideas at the door. Read it honestly. Do not run to the writings of other men to see what they have to say about it. Just read it, remembering the other passages that we have examined, for it is not difficult to understand. When you have finished, it will not be possible to claim that baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. Go to your pastor, preacher, or other religious leader at your church and, if he teaches that baptism is not necessary for salvation, ask him to explain what Romans 6 really means. Ask him why it does not mean what it quite clearly says. Ask him how a person can be saved while still enslaved to sin and bearing the “body of sin.” Ask him how a person can be saved who has not shared in Christ’s resurrection to walk in newness of life. Take your Bible into his office and lay it open before him. Make him answer and explain. Pay careful to attention to his explanation, noting whether he reasons from the Scriptures or not. Do not let him run to all of the verses that connect belief and salvation, for that answers nothing. You may just as well run to all the verses that connect repentance, confession, and baptism to salvation. The question is not whether or not belief is essential to salvation, for that cannot be denied. Yet neither can the necessity of baptism as the verses we have examined thus far clearly show. Make him explain why 1 Peter 3:21 does not really mean “baptism now saves you.” Make him explain why Mark 16:16 does not really mean, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Make him explain why Peter did not really mean to say, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Make him explain why Ananias misspoke to Saul when he suggested that baptism washes away sins by saying, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). ASK THESE THINGS!

Perhaps your pastor or preacher may try to shrug it off as just not being a big deal. Perhaps he may become angry that someone would dare question him. Perhaps he will become defensive as he struggles to justify changing what the Bible teaches. Perhaps he may recognize the truthfulness of God’s Word and change what he teaches. Regardless of his reaction, please remember that souls are at stake and you deserve a straight answer. You deserve to know the truth of the matter, particularly concerning a topic as important as the salvation of your soul. If he truly loves your soul, he will be willing to answer your questions.

The Proper Method of Baptism

Now that we have allowed the Bible to show us beyond a shadow of a doubt the necessity of baptism in one’s salvation and becoming a Christian, let’s take some time to consider its mode or method.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says the following about baptisma, the Greek noun for baptism: “baptism, consisting of the process of immersion, submersion, and emergence (from bapto, to dip), is used (a) of John’s baptism, (b) of Christian baptism…”

Much of the religious world today claims that immersion, dipping, or sprinkling of water satisfies for baptism. Is such the case? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about it.

Let us notice the wording of a few passages and see if we can determine the method of first century baptism from them. First of all, let’s look at a verse previously referenced—Colossians 2:12. The passage says, “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” This verse clearly indicates that baptism was a burial.

Consider once again with me some verses from Romans 6. Let’s re-read verses 3 and 4: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Allow me to ask a question. If a loved one of yours passed away would you permit a sprinkling or dipping of earth upon them to suffice for a burial? Certainly the answer would be no because sprinkling or dipping is not a burial. Is something so easy to understand in every other walk of life such a mystery when we move into the spiritual realm?

In Acts 8 Philip begins to teach a eunuch from Ethiopia the gospel. As they travel on their way the eunuch, having been taught the necessity of baptism for the washing away of sins, points out a body of water. Let us pick up in Acts 8:38 and 39: “And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” I underlined portions of these two verses so that you would notice that they went down into the water and came up out of the water. Would it not have been much easier, and far less messy, to go to the water’s edge, Philip cup some water in his hand, and simply sprinkle it over the head of the eunuch? Of course it would, yet that would not have sufficed for a burial, which the Scriptures plainly reveal baptism is to be.

If the practice of the first century Christians means anything to us then we see that when they baptized, they always immersed. In fact, one will not be able to find a single instance anywhere in the Scriptures that even hints that baptism can be done another way. If it could, what would be the point of referring to it as a burial? After all, sprinkling, pouring, or dipping do not constitute burials.

Now someone says, “But it is not good at all to immerse an infant or small child under the water. How then could baptism only be valid when it is a burial? How are we to baptize our babies or small children?” That is a very good question and leads to our next area of study.

Who is a Candidate for Baptism?

I would answer the question asked at the end of the last section very simply and plainly—We are not to baptize our babies or small children. I understand that this sounds very strange to many people and is contrary to much of the religious world’s practice and teaching. However, as we must do with all things spiritual, let us see what the Bible says on the subject.

Go back once again to Acts 8. This time we want to notice something that Philip said to the eunuch upon the eunuch’s request for baptism. Verses 36-37 say, “And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Before Philip would baptize the eunuch, he had to make sure that the eunuch believed with all of his heart that Jesus was the Son of God. What baby is there who can make that confession?

Let’s turn back to Acts 2 and read verse 37 once again: “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?” Did you notice that these folks were “cut to the heart”? As we discussed earlier, they were feeling for the first time the unbearable weight of the guilt of their sin. They recognized and realized that they were in a lost condition. Because of this they were cut to heart and it was that realization that prompted their question. I stand in the pulpit every week and preach two sermons but have never seen any babies pierced to the heart and asking what they need to do to be saved. Now I certainly do not presume to be as able a preacher as the apostle Peter, not even close. However, I do know that I am preaching the same thing that he preached. However, even the mighty apostle himself could stand in our pulpit week after week, delivering magnificent sermons, and not a single baby is going to pay him any more attention than they pay me. Why? Because babies do not have the capability at so young an age to understand and perceive what they hear.

I suggest to you that babies are not subject to the Law of Christ. In Ephesians 5:17 the apostle Paul said, “Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” God expects us to understand His will. However, small children and those with severe mental disabilities are not able to do that and therefore cannot be subject to obeying God’s will. They cannot do it because they cannot understand it. Paul himself indicates that this was the case in his own life in Romans 7:9, “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.” Paul could not be saying that there was no law when he was first born for there certainly was. The only conclusion that one can draw from his words is that Paul has reference to his life as a child. He did not understand God’s will or the consequences for disobeying it. However, as time went on and he grew in understanding and knowledge, he arrived at a point in his development when he did begin to understand God’s will and the consequences for disobeying it. That is when “the commandment came, sin came alive (for he broke the commandment) and I died (for the wages of sin is death-Rom. 6:23).”

Now someone says, “That may be, but do we not have to erase the stain of original sin from our child? How do we do that if not through baptism?” Many a concerned parent has asked this question, and rightfully so. This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of original sin for that is not our topic. However, let me say a few things on the topic. The idea of original sin is that each man is born stained because of the sin that Adam committed. Some forms of this idea claim that man is born sharing the guilt of Adam’s sin. That is blatantly false and the Bible does not teach that. Understand that there is a vast difference in saying that man is born subject to sin (which is absolutely true) and man is born guilty of sin (which is false). Read Ezekiel 18:4-20 to see that man is responsible for only the sins he commits.

One more thing along this line: Hebrews 12:9 says, “Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?” God is the Father of spirits. There is not a single person who has ever lived who received his soul from Adam. Since God has never sinned, and man receives his soul from God, why would we think that we would inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, when Adam had nothing at all to do with our souls? Think about that and ask your pastor if that is what he teaches.

So, my friends, we have seen that the person who believes in Christ as the Son of God, recognizes his guilt for the sins he has committed, and is seeking the only escape from condemnation that exists, is a candidate for baptism. Babies or small children can do none of these things, so they should not be baptized. We have also seen that in order for one to be subject to God’s law, he must be able to understand that law for God has commanded that he understand it (Ephesians 5:17; Romans 7:9). The baby, small child, or severely mentally handicapped person is not able to do that.

For the remainder of this booklet we will be answering commonly asked questions concerning various aspects of baptism. But from what we have studied thus far it has become obvious that baptism is essential and necessary for one’s salvation. Indeed, one cannot “put on Christ” or be saved without it. If you have not been baptized for the remission of your sins, won’t you please do so? It is far too important to put off. When a person comes to the realization that he needs his sins washed away, he needs to do it at that very hour. If this is your need, do not hesitate to give us a call; we will help you immediately. The numbers to contact us are on the back of this booklet.

Answers to Questions and Objections Concerning Baptism

“If baptism is essential for a person’s salvation as you say it is, then such men as Abraham, David, and Elijah were not saved because they were not baptized. Since Abraham was referred to as the “friend of God,” David was known as “a man after God’s own heart,” and Elijah represented the prophets on the mount of transfiguration, I simply cannot believe that.”

Why not add Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, Elisha and all the other great men and women of God from the Old Testament to this list? Do you ever stop to consider why these people are considered pillars of faith? It is because they were obedient to the law that they had. You see, nowhere was Abraham, David, or Elijah ever instructed to be baptized for the remission of their sins. As we noticed earlier, baptism is a sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When these men were alive, Jesus had not yet been born. But do not think for a moment that the men and women of faith of the Old Testament did not have a law. Simply read the book of Leviticus and it will become very apparent that they certainly did have a law they needed to obey.

The question is whether or not we are under the same law as they were. The New Testament is adamant that we are not. Colossians 2:13-14 has reference to the Old Law when it says, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” The Old Law has been nailed to our Lord’s cross. This is brought out even more clearly by the Hebrews writer. The New Testament may also be referred to as Christ’s will. Notice what the Hebrew writer says in Hebrews 9:15-17, “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.” What does this mean? The Hebrew writer tells us in Hebrews 8:13, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.”

Does this mean that the Old Testament is worthless? Certainly not! We can learn a great deal about God and His handling of people, both obedient and disobedient, from the Old Testament. We are to learn from the mistakes and triumphs of Israel as we examine God’s dealings with them in the Old Testament (Romans 15:4). We also learn from the Old Testament how genuine faith manifests itself in obedience to God’s will. However, our law for today, the “perfect law of liberty (James 1:25), is the New Testament.

Thus, it does not matter in the least what David, Elijah, Elisha, or any of the other great men and women of faith in the Old Testament did in relation to the law. All that matters is that they were obedient to the law that they had, just as we must be to the law of Christ today (1 Corinthians 9:21). The next time someone says, “What was good enough for David is good enough for me”, remember that David offered burnt sacrifices and kept the Jewish feast days. Do you do the same? No, my friends; be faithful to the law that you have been given and you will do well. Our law for today says, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.”

“Since New Testament baptism is the equivalent of Old Testament circumcision, it is, in fact, proper and right to baptize infants and small children.”

There is no verse in the Bible that even hints that Old Testament circumcision is equivalent to baptism. I have searched and searched and cannot find it anywhere. Always remember that assertion is not proof. I can stand up in the pulpit and assert all day long that I have the ability to perform miracles, but until I do so I have offered as much proof as the person who claims that Old Law circumcision is the equivalent of baptism. The fact is, the Bible nowhere says that.

Consider this: if circumcision and baptism are equivalent then only baby boys should be baptized, for only baby boys, obviously, could receive circumcision. Once again we find that a person gets into a great deal of trouble when he begins to teach what the Bible does not.

“What about people who live in an area where there just is not any water? What are they supposed to do?”

I do not mean to be flippant with this response but how, it may be asked, are these people living if there is no water nearby? I do not have the slightest problem in saying that even if a person has made his home in the deepest, darkest, most remote part of the world, there is water somewhere near them. Otherwise, he could not survive there. Remember this: Philip and eunuch found sufficient water and they were travelling through the desert!

You know, when people begin to use hypothetical situations to prove their position it usually means that they do not have a scriptural leg to stand on. Such is the case with this question. Do you know what I have found so interesting from those who have asked this question to me? Not one of them has been in that position! Every single person who has ever asked this question has had ample water nearby where they could submit to the will of the Lord in baptism if they so desired.

“You mean to tell me that when that poor soldier has been shot on the battlefield and, staring up into the heavens, gives himself to the Lord with his dying breath, he is going straight to hell because he did not have time to be immersed in water?”

The question can become quite an emotional one, can’t it? Let me begin by saying that I am not God to determine the eternal resting place of any person. The older preachers called that “whittling on God’s end of the stick.” However, neither is the man who confidently claims that the poor soldier is going to heaven in a position to make that claim. Is it a comforting thought? Certainly it is. Is it the truth? Well, that’s another ballgame entirely.

What do we know for sure? We know that Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Are we in a position to ignore that, even in tragic circumstances? We know that Peter said, “Baptism...now saves you.” Do we have the right or authority to claim that it is not that important so that we, or some grieving family members, might feel a little better? We know that Ananias said to Saul, “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.” Are we permitted by God to claim that baptism is not necessary to wash away sins? The point is this: while I do not have the right to determine the final resting place of that poor soldier, whether good or bad, I do have the responsibility to teach exactly what the Bible teaches on the subject. Remember the grave warning of Revelation 22:18-19, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” Is it merely coincidence that these are some of the last words in the Bible? I do not think so.

Yet consider this: suppose this same soldier is shot and killed just seconds before he could accept Jesus Christ into his heart as his Lord and Savior. Is he going to hell? Do you see how these emotional and hypothetical situations can be turned right back around on the ones asking them? We must cling solely to the Scriptures to answer all things spiritual.

“If baptism is for the remission of sins and is necessary in order for a person to be saved, then there is a mediator other than Christ. The one who administers the baptism has become a mediator!”

1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus.” The Bible quite clearly states that Jesus is the one mediator between man and God. Yet this argument says that the administrator of baptism becomes a mediator as well. This makes two mediators and contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5. Let us ask the same question that we asked earlier. Where, in any portion of the Bible, is the one administering baptism said to be mediator between man and God just as Christ is? That verse does not exist. According to this theory, Ananias contradicted 1 Timothy 2:5 by baptizing Saul, which washed away his sins (Acts 22:16), for in so doing he joined Christ as mediator. Philip contradicted 1 Timothy 2:5 in baptizing the eunuch for he also became a mediator. Peter certainly must have been in error when he actually said that baptism now saves you! Certainly he was joining Christ as mediator! This is another objection with absolutely no scriptural basis whatsoever.

For the moment, however, let us grant them this position. Would it not then make the person who preaches the gospel, which must be believed if one is to be saved, a mediator for the one who believes what he preached? Would that not also contradict 1 Timothy 2:5? If the act of administering baptism makes a person a mediator along with Christ, then why does preaching the gospel, which causes a person to believe, not do the very same thing? The truth is that neither one of them contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5 and only a man unwilling to accept biblical teaching on baptism would say that it does.

“The book of Acts says that entire households were baptized. Certainly that would include infants, right?”

Cornelius’ family and friends gathered to hear Peter preach the gospel (Acts 10). Also, the Philippian jailor and his household heard the gospel preached and were baptized (Acts 16:33). Lydia, along with her household, was converted (Acts 16:15). Let us begin by saying that those who claim that infants were included in these households and were baptized along with the rest do not have any proof to make these claims. In fact, evidence is against it.

We have already discussed in an earlier section what it takes to be a proper candidate for baptism. A person must believe in the Lord, recognize his sin, feel guilt for that sin and acknowledge his helplessness to do anything about it by himself. Simple common sense tells us that a baby cannot do that. Yet let us consider some of these passages themselves and see what they tell us. In Acts 10:46, after the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and those with him, we read, “For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.” Does this mean that infants were also speaking in tongues and extolling God? I have yet to hear the person who says that they were. In Acts 16:33-34 we are told the following about the jailor and his household, “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.” Wouldn’t it be a sight to see a baby rejoicing because it had believed in God?

No, my friends. It is a very weak argument for infant baptism and cannot in any way be proved. Also, we have seen from our study already and the accounts themselves that every bit of evidence is aligned against it.

“What about all of the passages that connect salvation to belief alone?”

You know, this is usually the favorite argument of those who teach against the necessity of baptism. Often one who has been asked whether or not baptism has anything to do with salvation will pull out his concordance and find multiple passages that mention belief and salvation in the same verse. I have heard and read debates in which a preacher spent almost an entire debate on the subject of baptism, rarely if ever mentioning the word. My friends, proving that belief is necessary for salvation has never been the question, and it does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

In fact, it is a rather weak tactic that does not even begin to touch the issue. Suppose I went to Luke 13:3 where Jesus said, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Would it be proper for me to say, “See, Jesus said that a person has to repent or they will be lost. Thus, belief is obviously not essential to salvation.” Of course it would not be proper for me to say something like that, for I have only taken a very small part of the plan of salvation to the exclusion of the rest. This is precisely what so many want to do in relation to baptism. A person must be willing to take all that the Bible has to say about the plan of salvation together. The Bible is not a buffet line where we can pick what we like and leave the rest behind. Take it all together and the plan of salvation is very plain and clear.

Conclusion

There is much more that can be said on this all-important subject. However, what we have discussed is more than enough to show the importance of baptism to the soul of man and also answered the common questions and objections to it. Can we help you in any way on your spiritual journey? If so, please give us a call!