The Washing of Water by the Word--Baptism and Salvation

Baptism is essential to salvation but there are many non-believers, people who do not believe that. I want to deal with one passage today that affirms this doctrine but which is seldom used because the word baptize or baptism is not found in the passage. The phrase used is “washing of water” as found in Eph. 5:25-27.

Eph. 5:25-27 reads as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (NKJV)

The phrase “washing of water” is a direct reference to baptism. “By the word” signifies the reason for the baptism--God’s word. God’s word directs one to be baptized.

Some think they can be saved outside the church. That cannot happen. Why? Because, as the text plainly tells us, that is what Christ gave himself for. Because Christians are the church, and it is Christians who will be saved.

The Bible teaches the church is the body of Christ, Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18, and “he (that is Jesus--DS) is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) Nowhere does the Bible teach that one can be outside the Savior (his body, the church) and be saved. If you can be outside the Savior and be saved, then you can be outside the church and be saved, but not until then. Is there anyone who thinks they can be saved outside the Savior? If you could be, the Savior would not be needed.

One must be “in Christ” to be saved. We are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27). It is “in Christ” where “all spiritual blessings” are found (Eph. 1:3 KJV). Other translations use the phrase “every spiritual blessing.” If you are not in Christ, you are outside the realm where these spiritual blessings are found.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that Jesus sanctified the body and cleansed it by the washing of water (baptism)--that is what it says; read it for yourself. Since you and I are the church, the body, that is how we are sanctified and cleansed. The word sanctify means to make holy; thus, several modern-day translations use the word holy rather than sanctify in the Ephesian passage (see the NIV, CSB, NLT, and the NRSV). For example, the NIV reads “to make her holy” in Eph. 5:26, with reference to the church.

We are told to “pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14 NKJV) It is essential to be made holy, and that is done by the Lord when we obey him by being baptized based on our faith and repentance. When we do we become “a holy priesthood.” (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) Of course, holiness must be maintained. We are not to become backsliders and fall away.

Jesus cleansed the church, you and I, by the washing of water--baptism. To argue with that is to argue with an inspired apostle--Paul. If you are thinking that possibly the phrase “washing of water” might mean something else other than baptism then take a look at 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV) “By one Spirit” is the same as “by the word” in Eph. 5:26 for the word is the mind of the Spirit, the Spirit speaking to us, leading us to faith and obedience.

Paul also tells us elsewhere how we enter this body of Christ, how we enter Christ himself spiritually speaking. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) See also Rom. 6:3.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that baptism is essential for note some things that are true if we fail to be washed of water. If you are not washed by water, then you are not sanctified, not made holy. True, the Bible teaches we are sanctified by a number of things, not just the washing of water, but which one of those number of things given in the Bible by which we are sanctified will you cast aside as of no account on your own authority? Will it be the washing of water? If so it is, indeed, on your own authority.

The wise man says if God said it I believe it, and it is essential to believe and obey to the very best of one's ability. We do not have an option of picking and choosing. We cannot legislate for God. Can you be sanctified without the washing of water, be made holy? Our attitude ought to be that everything that is said concerning sanctification and how it comes is true and essential.

But let us move on for there is more in the text. If the washing of water is the way Jesus cleansed the church, meaning those who became Christians, and that is what the text says, then if I have failed to be baptized I have not yet been cleansed. Cleansed of what? What is there to be cleansed of? Sin.

But there is much more to this washing. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of sins and says that those who do those things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He then goes on and says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) “By the Spirit of our God” means the Spirit was involved but we are not told how he was involved, not here. We are told in the passage that is the subject of this article--Eph. 5:25-27. It was by means of the Spirit working through the word. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). It leads a man to faith and obedience. In their washing, the Corinthians were cleansed as much so as the Ephesians.

Of Christians, the Hebrew writer says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) If a person has not had his body washed with the water of which the Hebrew writer is speaking (baptism), then he is not qualified to draw near. He may well attempt to do it anyway and tell himself he is being successful but he is at odds with the Hebrew writer.

Peter speaks of how to deal with this evil conscience and rid oneself of it. He says, “there is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism,” which he says is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1Peter 3:21 NKJV) That is the man who can “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience. That is the man who has had his body “washed with pure water.” It is the man who was led by the Spirit.

[As an aside, the Heb. 10:22 passage, reread it above, answers those who are always saying, because they do not want to accept baptism, that the word "water" is symbolic and is thus not a reference to water baptism. If they are correct then in Heb. 10:22 the physical body was washed with pure symbolism. When one rejects the truth they will believe about anything.]

There is more. In Acts 22:16, Ananias told Saul to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (NKJV) What was Saul going to be baptized in? Water. What was going to happen as a result? The washing away of sins.

I have heard people who do not understand baptism say things like there is nothing in water that can wash away sins, the idea being that sin is like dirt on the body that can be washed off. Well, no sin is not like dirt on the body where a little water, soap, and a wash rag will take care of it. But, there is something in the baptismal waters that will take care of sin. What? The promise of Jesus, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) If a man is saved, he has had his sins remitted. The promise of Jesus is in the water.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, had a promise in the water. He found out if you want the promise of cleansing, you must get in the water. You can read about his experience in 2 Kings 5.

In America today, among those who call themselves Christians, not many believe what Jesus said. They believe, “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” just as well as he who believes and is baptized. They say they are going to be saved by faith but have no faith in what Jesus said. I find deep irony in that.

Baptism is essential to salvation just as much so as faith and repentance and the confession of Jesus but there are non-believers who will neither believe nor obey. They are in God’s hands. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31 NKJV) When you will not obey what God has clearly commanded it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into his hands.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

What Is Baptism—Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion

It may be that no Bible subject has caused more confusion among people than the subject of baptism. What is baptism? What is its purpose? Who should be baptized? Why? I would like to look at all of these questions, but for the present, for the purpose of this article, I will confine myself to the question, what is baptism?

Most people assume that the words found in our New Testaments are English words translated from the original Greek. You may be surprised to learn that the word "baptize" and its derivatives are not English words at all, not at first. They are Greek words that were transliterated.

What does that mean?  Dictionary.com online defines transliterate as follows: “to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.” Thus, those men who translated our New Testaments from the Greek into English decided not to translate the Greek word "baptize" at all. They just made it a new English word. Forget translating it, forget translating the Greek word. To translate is to give the meaning of the Greek word in English. That they refused to do.

Why would they do that? That is a good question. It is a question with an easy answer. The Greek word means to immerse completely. My hardback copy of Vine's, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says of baptism, "consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence." If the reader will do a little of their own research they will quickly see that most all Greek scholars readily admit that in the first century the word was used of immersion only, that is what the Greek word meant to those people.

The Bible confirms this to be the case for Paul says, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) Baptism is a burial, a burial in water when used in a religious context. Paul says again in Col. 2:11-12 (NKJV), "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." One is not and cannot be buried by pouring or sprinkling.

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek work was transliterated and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse, or dip, or submerge. If you do that, what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don't translate the Greek, transliterate it, producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean what you want it to mean.

The first time after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 that anyone was sprinkled or had water poured on them rather than be immersed was approximately 250 years later. In about 250 AD, a man named Novation became ill and fearing for his life wanted to be baptized. Too ill for immersion his friends poured water on him. By that point in time there was not an inspired man alive to cause problems over this substitution. Inspiration had ended. The apostles were dead.

One had to go outside the pages of the New Testament to get pouring (affusion) or sprinkling, showing little respect for what was written. What was written was not sufficient for a man (or his friends) who felt he was at the point of death, and knowing he had not been obedient to the command to be baptized (immersed), was desperate. What he needed was a change in the ordinance. He needed pouring as a substitution and if he or his friends had to add a new law or change an old one to get it in then so be it. Evidently, they had never read the passage, “There is one Lawgiver.” (James 4:12 NKJV) Either that or they were just going to ignore it.

Thus, we see the kind of attitude that brought sprinkling and pouring into what the world calls "Christianity." One ought to be able to see the evil of that kind of attitude toward God's word; if I can't find what I want in the word I will do whatever.

In 1311, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Revenna officially adopted pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) of water as valid baptism. The Greek Catholic Church would not accept this but the Roman Catholic Church did and it exercised dominance in the West where the English-speaking people resided and where English Bibles were to be produced. This was more than 100 years before the printing press was invented making mass production of Bibles possible. Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 was one of the first to use the word baptism or baptize consistently in an English Bible.

The long and short of it was that the doctrine of sprinkling was, by subterfuge, brought into the Bible by a deliberate failure to translate a Greek word and giving the transliterated word any meaning you wanted since it was a new word to the English language. That is why if you look up the word "baptize" or "baptism" in a modern-day dictionary it will give you meanings related to the way the word is used today, thus giving you options--sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Even so I was surprised to see that my Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition, the last copyright listed being 1988, while listing 3 common meanings of the word "baptize" as used today, gives before those listings the Greek meanings and I quote here from it--"to immerse," "to dip." Honesty in scholarship is a great thing.

Most all scholars will agree on the meaning of the original Greek word baptize, immerse or dip, but you will probably never see again a major translation that will translate the Greek word baptize that way. Why? With the vast multitude of people who have now come to wholeheartedly embrace sprinkling how many Bibles do you think they would sell? You can still learn the truth on this topic through your own study but you will get no help from most Bible translations. One exception is the Literal Standard Version translation but how many people do you know who have this translation? It is not a major one.

What is sad is that some will read what I have written here, they will then go and do their own research, find out that what I have said is the truth, and yet it will not make a bit of difference in their view of the subject if they have by tradition had pouring and sprinkling handed down to them in their particular faith.

Pouring and sprinkling for baptism came to us from man, not God. It has now become a tradition of men. Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3 NKJV) God's commandment to us is to be immersed. Everyone agrees that was the original commandment and historically was done exclusively for a couple of hundred years after the church was established. When I substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion how can I say anything other than I have done the very same thing these scribes and Pharisees did?

I have transgressed the commandment of God because of my tradition preferring to keep my tradition (pouring and/or sprinkling) over his word (immersion). I have made the commandment of God of no effect by my tradition handed down to me by those who came before which I have accepted wholeheartedly.

Then Jesus also does a comparison and contrast in talking to the scribes and Pharisees. He says God says (Matt. 15:4), then says "but you say." (Matt. 15:5). Again, it is hard to not see a parallel. I, God, have said immersion, but you say sprinkling.

Then we also have to ask, since pouring and sprinkling came from man being 200 to 1300 years after the writing of the New Testament, depending on whether you want to start your count with Novation or the Council of Ravenna, how it can be said that God had anything to do with bringing affusion or asperion into the faith? How can it be anything other than "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"? (Matt. 15:9 NKJV)

The only way one can get around the difficulties associated with accepting pouring and sprinkling is to say the New Testament is insufficient as a guide for man today. It must be amended. This smacks of the utmost arrogance. It is to say God was not able, not capable, of producing a guide that could stand the test of time and stand on its own two legs. It is to say that we men of dust need to help God stay updated. It is to say we still have inspired men able to amend the teachings of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church accepts both—its inspiration through the Magisterium and the Pope and the need for God's word, the New Testament, to be amended and added to from time to time. If you believe that, then it is not hard to abandon the written word or replace it with your own, your teaching and tradition. Just combine it all and claim the totality to be “God’s word.”

But the truth is this is the approach the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians take whether they are Catholics or Protestants. They are putting their trust in men rather than in what is written. The idea seems to prevail that their tradition (or practice if you will) regarding baptism, whether begun in 250 AD or in the Middle Ages, or even more recently somehow trumps the New Testament and amends it. And, yet, they think it is of God.

I don't know whether you ever thought about it this way or not. What we are saying when we add to God's word is that it alone is insufficient to save men. We now need more. Yes, there was a time when immersion alone was sufficient but not so today. Men need options God did not give. It is too hard to have to do what he said way back then. Getting all wet is too big an inconvenience. What was once sufficient is no longer so. Who said so? We did. Who could fairly question us who have made ourselves the authority?

Hear the words of Jesus, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." John 12:48 (NKJV) The word of Jesus in the New Testament is be immersed.

Today we need to make a choice. Will we believe and practice those things that came into our midst religiously hundreds of years after the establishment of the church and which, as a result, came obviously from man, not God, or will we return to the New Testament as our sole guide in our faith and practice? We need to choose. We ought to say as for me and my house I will follow the words of the Lord as recorded in the New Testament and leave the ideas, opinions, and innovations of man to those for whom the New Testament is not good enough.

[To download this article or print it out here.]

Spiritual Mirages

It is so easy to be misled in life. Things appear to be a certain way, but the reality is they are not at all what they seem to be. They are a mirage. Ask any young man or woman or husband or wife who has been deeply in love and then found out to their utter dismay that the love they felt sure was mutual between them and their beloved was all just an illusion and the object of their affections was in reality ready to desert them. The first reaction is one of shock and disbelief. Only later are they able to look back and perhaps pick up on some signs that should have clued them in all along, signs which at the time were hidden from their eyes. Sadly, this sort of thing happens all the time and when one comes to the knowledge of the truth in such matters it is never pleasant.

In the realm of religion, just as in the realm of personal relationships, there are mirages. People think they see things that are in reality only illusions. One such example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, God's prophet, had been prophesying for years to Judah to repent and amend their ways lest God send a foreign force to their country for their destruction and ruin. They never listened and so God did indeed send the Babylonians resulting in death for many and Babylonian captivity for those that were left alive. Only the very poorest of the land were left in Judah to till the land under the leadership of a man appointed by the king of Babylon, Gedaliah.

Due to some outside intrigue by the king of Ammon men were sent to assassinate Gedaliah which mission they accomplished.  This put great fear into the Jews left in the land fearing that the king of Babylon would return and punish them over the affair even though they were not involved in it. The desire was to flee to Egypt for safety. (Read the account in Jer. 40:13-41:18.) Before leaving for Egypt, however, they consulted with Jeremiah asking him, on their behalf, to seek God's will in the matter. Having done so and received from God an answer they were instructed and warned not to go to Egypt.

"Then hear now the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah! Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: 'If you wholly set your faces to enter Egypt, and go to dwell there, then it shall be that the sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; the famine of which you were afraid shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there you shall die. So shall it be with all the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to dwell there. They shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. And none of them shall remain or escape from the disaster that I will bring upon them.'" (Jer. 42:15-17 NKJV)

The people did not believe Jeremiah, accused him of lying (Jer. 43:2), and left for Egypt dragging Jeremiah along with them. Once there, they continued their idol worship (Jer. 44:8) and continued ignoring Jeremiah's prophetic warnings (Jer. 43:8-Jer. 44:14). We now get to the lesson I want to emphasize for this article. The people respond to Jeremiah's prophecy by saying:

"As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." (Jer. 44:16-18 NKJV)

Here is the spiritual mirage, the illusion, the incomprehension, the self-deception, and herein lies the lesson we all must learn and take to heart. There is a great tendency on man's part to believe that if he is actively involved in spiritual affairs, sincere in its belief and practise, and if his life as it pertains to this world seems to be going relatively well that is an indication God is pleased with him and his religion and that God is with him blessing him as a result of his spiritual life.

Just because things are going reasonably well for us in our lives does not mean things are well with us spiritually. Just because we have a spiritual life, one we are actively involved in, does not mean it is the right religion or pleasing to God. As far as I am able to tell from reading the New Testament the Pharisees of Jesus' day were doing just fine as far as the blessings of this world were concerned but they were experiencing their own spiritual mirage as much as those Jews in Jeremiah’s day.

The Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing could not have been more wrong than they were with regard to their concept of cause and effect. While they may have "had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble" the cause was not because they were worshipping "the queen of heaven" to whom they attributed it. They were involved in a spiritual illusion, a spiritual mirage, and one which man is very easily led into even today. We easily deceive ourselves just as was the case in Jeremiah's time.

The God of heaven is generally patient with man although no man should sin thinking God will give him time to repent. God is under no obligation to give man time to repent from sin. One can readily come up with many examples from the Bible where sinners were struck down immediately upon committing sin.

Nevertheless, it seems most are given time as God "is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) One sees this not only in the book of Jeremiah where Jeremiah urged repentance and a turning back to God for years before tragedy finally struck but it is a common Old Testament theme as apostasy was common among God's people throughout most of Old Testament history and the prophets were continually calling for repentance with God giving time and opportunity.

Romans two, verse four, helps us see God's patience and longsuffering with sinful man. I quote it here from the New Living Translation. "Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that His kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?" (Rom. 2:4 NLT) The NKJV reads, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (NKJV)

The Jews of Jeremiah's day were attributing God's goodness and longsuffering, meant for their repentance and salvation, to blessings from the idol they were worshipping--the queen of heaven. While we do not worship idols today, save for a few places in the world, aren't we in danger of doing something very similar to the Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing? Everything is going well; we see no need to repent thinking our life is pleasing to God and we are being blessed because of our godly life all the while knowing we cannot read specific Bible passages without them condemning us--our life, our faith, our conduct. We like the Jews of old will not listen to God's specific word. We convince ourselves, in one way or another, that things have changed today and the passage or passages that prick us are no longer relevant to modern-day life and religion.

We feel Christianity has evolved and things that once were are no longer true or binding on us. God has changed, seems to be the thinking, even though he has specifically said, “I change not.” (Mal. 3:6 KJV) We either do that or we twist passages to make them mean what we wish they said.

The church at Laodicea can serve as an example of how we can delude ourselves and see mirages. They were saying to themselves, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) However, what does Jesus say about them? He says they do not know that they “are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) His message to them ends up being "be zealous and repent." (Rev. 3:19 NKJV) Yet, that was the very thing they saw no need of, for they were saying among themselves, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Rev/ 3:17 NKJV) They were pleased and satisfied and yet Jesus says their eyes needed to be anointed with eye salve so they could see (Rev. 3:18). They were seeing a mirage.

I am convinced people today are just as easily misled into erroneous thinking about their status with God as they were back in Bible times. A person can look at their life and see all kinds of blessings and think God is being so good to me and therefore he must be pleased with my religious life. That is not necessarily the case at all. One’s financial and social status, one’s blessings in this life, tell us nothing about how God sees us. The beggar in the account of the rich man and Lazarus had no money, no status or standing in this world of men, but went to paradise upon his death.

That kind of reasoning that correlates this world’s blessings with godly approval would lead to the conclusion that Paul was displeasing to God and living an ungodly life for he spoke about what he had experienced when he said, "From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness … ." (2 Cor. 11:24-27 NKJV)

Blessings from God do not necessarily equate with God being pleased with you and the way you are living your life. It is a spiritual mirage to think God is pleased with me because of all I have, all I have done, and accomplished. Jesus himself, while living on earth, had little to nothing of this world's goods. He once said he had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20).

The same point that is being made about individuals can also be said of religious groups. Do not be misled by size and appearances. If one wants to please the masses, it can be done. There are ways to tear down the old building and build bigger and fill the parking lot up (how this is done is no secret) and then say God blessed you as a religious body. If you have been observant, you know how it is done as well as I do. The question that has to be answered, however, is what brought them in—God or the appeal to the fleshly man? Was it an appeal to faith and duty or an appeal to that which satisfies the natural man?

The conclusion of the matter is this—while all blessings come from God and we should be thankful for every one of them, we ought not to jump to conclusions about why we received them. Many a man blessed abundantly in this life will be found in hell in the next one for the goodness of God in his case did not lead him to repentance while the poor widow (Luke 21) having given up even her two mites along with the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) will be there in heaven. (One assumes the poor widow continued faithful until death.)

It continues to trouble me greatly how people just assume, make assumptions, all of the time in the realm of religion. All seems to be well with them and God, in their mind, just because they feel it is so. Their religion is based on emotion, on feeling, and is purely subjective. It is a matter of how I feel about it (just as in Jeremiah's day) versus book, chapter, and verse from God's word. When the choice is between the actual word of God as can be quoted versus their emotions, God's word will take second place. That is living life based on a spiritual mirage, an illusion that will be shown up for what it is on the last day. Jeremiah spoke the word of God. The Jews should have heard it. They paid the penalty for doing it their way. We will pay the penalty for doing it our way unless our way has the word of God behind it.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.

The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed, in religious error.

As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.

Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, once he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?  

Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered?" If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?

The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? 

Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.

But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel. 

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter by the Holy Spirit commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, “I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word.”

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]