Is Denominational Baptism Scriptural

Many different baptisms are being performed today by religious people, using different methods and modes and for different purposes.  However, the only baptism that I as an individual facing eternity ought to be concerned with is the baptism that Jesus spoke of when he said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

This is the baptism of the Great Commission when Jesus told the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (literally “into”—see NAS reference note—DS) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19-20 NKJV)  This is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of in Eph. 4:5 that places one in Christ (Gal. 3:27) where salvation is found (2 Tim. 2:10).  It is therefore spoken of as being “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and is a baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) of which he is the “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV), the body being the church (Eph. 1:22-23). 

It is a baptism you are required to teach for the Great Commission that was given to the apostles was that they teach those they had made disciples of and baptized to go and do the same thing teaching and baptizing others. (Matt. 28:20)  This continual handing down of the teaching and practice from one generation to another is to last as long as the Great Commission remains in effect--until the day of Christ’s return.  It is the one and only scriptural baptism that was to last for all generations.

While the baptism we have just discussed is the only one a man or woman needs to be personally concerned about the truth is man has come up with his own inventions thus we have differences in baptisms today.  Solomon said, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” (Eccl. 7:29 NKJV)  Human nature never changed and so it is today as it was back then.

The first invention of man, relating to baptism, was the idea that he could sprinkle men and call it baptism and put his man-made invention on an equal plain with the baptism of the Great Commission.  Man can try it and use that procedure and pay for his error in the end.  God never gave man the authority to change the meaning of his inspired word or to add to it.  “These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches.” (1 Cor. 2:13 NKJV)

The words baptize, baptism, etc., found in your New Testament were words from the Greek carried over into the English without ever being translated.  We call them transliterated words.  Why were these Greek words never translated?  Because the Greek means to submerge, immerse, to dip.  By the time the Bible was being translated into English men had already become wedded to their invention--sprinkling and calling it baptism.  To translate the word accurately using the word immerse would end their deception for any capable of reading.  Sprinkling for baptism was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1311 A.D. at the Council of Revenna hundreds of years after no apostles were around to object.

Vine’s “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” a standard work, says of the word baptism, “consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence.”  I encourage the reader to do a Google search or use any other computer search engine and do their own research.  Type into your search engine the keywords “transliterated +baptism” minus the quotes.  Read and learn.

Paul says, “We were buried with him through baptism.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV)  He was talking to people who had been buried in water, not sprinkled or poured, for baptism was a burial. Sprinkling and pouring are not only frauds but also exceedingly dangerous in that many who know no better believe they have been scripturally baptized.  It would only be scriptural if one could change the meaning of God’s word.  Wise people will not do that, not if they have read scriptures concerning those who would do so.

Scriptural baptism is immersion and immersion only but many denominations do practice immersion and are still in error on the subject of baptism.  How so?  They are in error on the meaning or purpose of baptism.

Let me ask a question that will help clarify.  If I dive off a diving board or someone pushes me into a swimming pool or a lake and I end up immersed is that a scriptural baptism?  If young children were in a backyard pool playing church and one immerses the other would that be a scriptural baptism?  We would all say no to both but why so?  It would be because baptism is about more than just being immersed in water.  There has to be understanding, purpose, and heart behind it of such a nature that will make it pleasing to God.

God has told us if we will accept it exactly what the purpose of baptism is and what it accomplishes.  Acts 2:38 tells us what we need to know about the purpose of baptism but how many believe what they read there today?  Not many.  Man came along generations later and began denying what Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said in that sermon recorded in Acts 2 and gave baptism a different purpose and meaning to suit themselves and then said “God is pleased.”  When one changes an ordinance of God and gives it an entirely different meaning than he gave it then it is a little presumptuous to just assume he is pleased.  What we have done is set ourselves up as God, displaced God as the lawgiver, and said this is now what this ordinance is going to mean.    We now decide.  He does not.

I do not know of a denomination that believes one must be baptized either for the remission of sins or to enter Christ (which is essentially the same thing) although there may be a few that do.  Generally speaking, they believe one is saved by faith with or without baptism and prior to baptism.  It is to them either a symbolic act or, in some cases, the means of entrance into their denomination.  In the latter case, there is a world of difference between entering a denomination (which they admit is not the body of Christ but only a segment of it) and entering the body of Christ, the church he established.  What denomination was Lydia a member of?  Lydia had it right, denominationalism has it wrong. 

Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and thus already in Christ’s church baptized to get into a denomination?  There were no denominations in New Testament times.  Not a single person in the New Testament was ever baptized to enter into a denomination so why do it now?  Certainly, this kind of baptism is not scriptural for as I have said it was impossible to do such a thing in New Testament times thus baptism was never designed for that purpose.

For those who believe they are saved by faith alone apart from baptism passages like 1 Cor. 12:13 become meaningless, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  It becomes meaningless for that is the very thing a saved by faith-alone advocate must deny.  He must deny that “we were all baptized into one body.”  His point of view is that he was already in the body (Christ’s body and thus saved) before and without baptism.

Salvation is in the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23, 1:22-23).  You are baptized into that body (1 Cor. 12:13) but the saved by faith alone man must claim to have gotten into that body some other way since he claims to be saved without being baptized into the body of Christ.  It logically follows then that his baptism, since he feels it does not put him into the body of Christ, must be to put him into a denomination of which the New Testament knows nothing or else be merely symbolic since it is not a baptism into Christ.

If one is baptized only as a symbolic gesture much of what has just been said applies as well.  Why is one who believes he is already saved, had his sins remitted, already entered into Christ through his faith alone, and is thus already in Christ’s church baptized as a symbolic gesture?  When did God command man to be baptized as a “symbolic gesture?”  My Bible does not say anything about “symbolic gestures.”  If someone would grab a concordance and look up the word “symbol” or “symbols” or “gestures” it might help but when I tried it I only got one hit on the word “symbol” and it related to the head covering in 1 Cor. 11.  I also tried the word “sign” and the word “figure” and came up dry as well.

The old King James does use the word “figure” in 1 Peter 3:21 related to baptism but it does not help those who want baptism to be just a figure for it says, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” and that is not the figure those who promote denominational baptism are wanting.  The bottom line is that all of this business about baptism being just a symbol is not found in my Bible or yours but only in the minds of men who have wandered from the truth.  It is a baptism that has no scriptural meaning and is an invention of men who want some changes in the Bible so it will read more to their liking.

Whether one views baptism as a passageway to enter a denominational church, to gain membership in it, or as just a symbol both are inventions of men and worthless as far as the Bible is concerned.  If you were baptized for either reason you were simply immersed like a man diving from a diving board (that is if you were immersed at all).

But the objection is made that I did it to obey God.  How can you obey God when you do a thing he has not commanded?  He never commanded you to be baptized into a denomination (obviously since they did not exist back then) nor did he ever command you to be baptized as a symbol for anything.  He did command you to be baptized for a specific set of purposes none of which are found in denominational baptism. 

One cannot accidentally obey God.  Let me explain.  If I was to partake of the Lord’s Supper without knowing the meaning of it could it be truly said I worshipped God in that act in a way pleasing to him?  We would all say of course not.  So it is with baptism.  To obey God you have to know what you are doing and why and desire to do it for the reasons he said.  One is to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7) and faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17).  We cannot walk blindly without knowing what we are doing and think we might just get lucky and do the right thing by accident.  There is no such thing as obedience in that type of action.

Finally, and this is important, when a person presents himself to be baptized with denominational baptism there are certain beliefs assumed by the body or congregation about him and what he believes.  By presenting himself to them as a candidate for their baptism he is assenting to their set of beliefs about what is happening in that procedure.  You are saying by your actions that you are doing this either to enter that denomination or as a symbolic gesture--whatever they teach.  If you did not assent to that and told them chances are they would not baptize you.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that certain things will be said during the baptismal ceremony about what is being done and why.  If you hold your silence you are assenting that you too accept those things.  If you do not agree and hold your silence (you are being baptized for some other reason than what the group holds to be the truth) then you deceive those around you.  Can a deceiver in the act of deceiving be scripturally baptized?

The bottom line is this--in presenting one’s self for denominational baptism one either believes the wrong things about baptism giving it an unscriptural meaning and application or else he believes correctly but deceives all around him into thinking he is going along with their erroneous beliefs about the subject and its results.

Say, for example, I believe baptism is for just what the Bible teaches and says it is--for the remission of sins, to place one into Christ, to place one in his body the church.  However, the denominational group I am associated with believes all that to be true by faith without baptism and believes that baptism is just a symbol of salvation already achieved.  I allow myself to be baptized by them never uttering a word of dissent to their belief or to what they say at the baptismal ceremony.  Have I deceived them?

Why bring this up?  Because years down the road after the fact there are those who learn the truth about baptism and need to be baptized scripturally but they look back some decades earlier and deceive themselves into thinking that way back when 30 - 40 years ago when they were baptized it was for the right purpose.  If it was for the right purpose those decades ago they deceived those baptizing them and being a deceiver is not a good way to go to judgment day.

Furthermore, we all learn the truth gradually, not all at once.  Minds are changed and/or brought to the truth gradually over time bit by bit.  This article will change no one’s opinion but it might be one straw that if other straws are added later will gradually change a mind given enough time which might be years.  Because this process is so gradual by the time we have finally come around a full 180 degrees in our thinking we look back and cannot remember a time when we did not think as we do now.  There is great danger in this.

Because of it we may never obey the truth, never be scripturally baptized, and thus never enter the church of which Jesus is the Savior, because we cannot remember the truth of our thinking and motives at the time years earlier when we first were immersed.  We tell ourselves we thought back then the way we think now thus we do nothing to change our state.  Denominational baptism ends up sinking another ship.  There is but one scriptural baptism and denominational baptism is not it. 

The purpose of this article has not been to be a wrecking ball but before one can build in a location already occupied the old structure must first be torn down.  Denominational baptism is an old structure that needs tearing down so that the truth can be built in the location that old structure once occupied.

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

 

 

  

10 Things If Baptism Is Not Essential For Salvation

Baptism is not essential for salvation according to most denominations.  The thought came to me recently if baptism is not essential for salvation what then?  What are the necessary implications of such a doctrine? 

(1)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then Jesus taught error when he said, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5 NKJV) for you can enter the kingdom of God without water if baptism is not essential for salvation.  But it is said that water here is not to be taken literally.  If that is correct then there is no reason to take Spirit literally either.  The two are joined together.  If one is figurative the other is as well.  If one is literal the other is as well. 

(2)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then Jesus errored again when he said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) for the truth would be “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved.”

 (3)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then Peter either lied or the Holy Spirit was in error when on the Day of Pentecost while preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be heard Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins.  “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  If baptism is not for the remission of sins one has to pick either Peter or the Holy Spirit as being a teacher of error.

(4)  If baptism is not essential for salvation Ananias is proven to be nothing less than an old (?) fool who did not know what he was talking about in Acts 22:16 when he told Saul (who was to become Paul the apostle), “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (NKJV)  What sins?  There are none to be washed away if salvation comes at the point of faith.  Surely, after seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus and talking with him Saul was no longer an unbeliever or doubter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.  Thus Ananias was in great error making any claim that Saul still needed to have his sins cleansed.

(5)  If baptism is not essential for salvation it makes Peter a slow learner for many years after his initial sermon on the Day of Pentecost he was still claiming that “there is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism”  (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV).  If salvation is by faith alone, with baptism having nothing at all to do with it, one would almost have to say that Peter became a habitual false teacher regarding the subject of baptism.

(6)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then the blood of Jesus is not essential for salvation.  In the Bible blood while literal also stands for or is representative of life itself.   Pilate in washing his hands of the whole affair (if only it was that easy to do) said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person.” (Matt. 27:24 NKJV)  He meant he was innocent of putting Jesus to death, innocent of his death.  The point being is that the blood of Jesus is a phrase standing for or meaning his death.  We are not saved by a literal drop of Jesus’ physical blood being sprinkled on our immaterial soul.

To come into contact with the blood of Christ, spiritually speaking, shed on the sinner’s behalf, we must go to where the blood is found--to the place where it was given--to or into his death.  Thus Paul says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  That puts us where the blood of Christ is bearing in mind that the blood stands for the giving up of life in death.  That is why Paul in the very next verse speaks of the baptized individual walking in “newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) for such a person has made spiritual contact with the blood of Christ and been cleansed of his sins by the blood of Jesus.  That is why Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized washing away his sins for he was washing them away in the blood of Jesus by being baptized into the death of Christ.

[The reader might also find it interesting to note that the literal blood of Jesus was shed like that of the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament after his death or in his death (John 19:33-34).  I doubt not for a minute the importance of the spear thrust in Jesus’ side after his death from whence “immediately blood and water came out.” (John 19:34)  “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” (Lev. 17:11)  I only add it is the blood of death that is required.  Blood equals death.  Jesus could not have saved us with just the blood from the beating he took and made atonement for us that way without dying.  Jesus had to die, not just shed some blood.  The spear in his side with the consequent loss of blood confirmed his death.] 

(7)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then being in Christ is not essential either for we enter into Christ by baptism.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV, see also Rom. 6:3)  But, does it matter whether we enter Christ or not?  It does if salvation matters for salvation is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 2:10).  Paul, speaking to Timothy, says he endures “all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)

Sometimes people want to quibble when one quotes Gal. 3:27 saying we left out the verse that comes right before it, verse 26, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (NKJV)  A quibble is all it is for when you put the two verses together here is what you get - how do you know you are a son of God through faith in Christ?  For you were baptized into Christ is what verse 27 says in answer to that.  You know you are a son of God through faith when you are baptized or when they were baptized with specific reference to the Galatians.

This shows the close connection of faith with baptism that many are unwilling to accept.  You have faith therefore you are baptized.  The text does not say, as many seem to advocate, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”  That is a necessary implication of the doctrine that baptism does not matter – a rewriting of the Biblical text. 

(8)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then neither is being a new creation.  “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV)  All things have become new where -- in Christ.  How does one enter into Christ?  We have already referred the reader to Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:3, and I add here 1 Cor. 12:13 all of which teach that one is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  What avails in Christ?  Paul says it is “a new creation.” (Gal. 6:15 NKJV)  Until the old man is ready to die to sin by such faith in Christ as to obey him in baptism he can never put on the new man.

To argue a man can put on Christ some other way than what the Bible says is to argue with God himself.  It is to say “as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”  It is the same as rewriting the Bible.  Does one want to attempt that?  

It is awfully easy to overlook a plain statement of scripture in Rom. 6 bearing on this subject.  We overlook it because our practice is to bury things already dead and not to bury things in order to put them to death.  However, if we read Rom. 6:2-8 carefully, maybe needing to read it two or three times and paying special attention to verse 4, we see we are buried in baptism to kill the old man.  We could say he is buried alive so he might die and so the new man can arise from the grave of baptism.  Here is a closer look.

“We were buried with him through baptism into death.” (Rom. 6:4)  A careful reading shows that while verse 3 is speaking of being buried into the death of Christ, verse 4 is speaking of our own death as we join in his.  Verse 7 also corroborates this.  When we arise from baptism just as Christ was raised from the dead “so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV)  “Our old man was crucified with him” (Rom. 6:6 NKJV) and thus “we died with Christ.” (Rom. 6:8 NKJV)

The whole teaching of Rom. 6:2-8 is that we die to sin in baptism and arise a new creation.  Paul says, “If we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection.” (Rom. 6:5 NKJV)  Does the word “if” have meaning?  What if we have not been united in the likeness of his death? 

(9)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then the body of Christ does not matter, the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24), “for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  If baptism is not essential for salvation then neither is being in the one body, the body of Christ, his spiritual body, the church.  Yet, Christ “is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)

If baptism is not essential then being in the one body of which Jesus is the Savior is not necessary thus one can be saved outside the body of Christ, outside the thing Jesus is the Savior of.  But, the body of Christ is the thing Jesus gave himself for.  “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water (baptism again -- DS) by the word.” (Eph. 25-26 NKJV)  I do not know how one gets into the body of which Jesus is the Savior aside from obeying the Savior and being baptized into it unless he desires to rewrite scripture.

(10)  If baptism is not essential to salvation then neither is the Great Commission for it reads in part, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  In verse 18 just before this he says he has “all authority” meaning the authority to command.  What did he command?

Jesus said to baptize the disciples.  Which disciples did he say it would be okay to not baptize?  Based on this verse alone every fair-minded reader would have to conclude that Jesus meant for every single disciple of his to be baptized without exception.   Can one be in willful disobedience to a direct command from Jesus and be saved?  He can if baptism is not essential to salvation.

I have listed 10 things here that necessarily follow if the doctrine that baptism is not essential for salvation is true.  The root of the whole problem people have with regards to baptism centers on the concept that faith and baptism are somehow at war with one another, that if baptism is essential it somehow destroys the concept of salvation by faith.

First-century Christians did not think that way.  How do I know?  Because every one of them was baptized and none argued about whether or not it was necessary.  They just did it as an act of faith having been commanded to do it.

How do I know they were all baptized?  Because if they were not baptized they disobeyed Jesus as per Matt. 28:19 already referred to above in relationship to the Great Commission.  Any apostle who received this commission and failed to carry it out has to answer to God, not to me.  This does not mean they had to do the baptizing but they were responsible for seeing that it was done when they made a disciple according to the commission given.  That commission accords exactly with what Jesus taught in Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (NKJV)

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

   

  

Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

In an article I wrote some time ago I had a gentleman of the Pentecostal persuasion respond seemingly upset with me over the issue of baptism as I was emphasizing the importance of water baptism which he was discounting as being nothing more than a picture of salvation (whatever that means).  Of course, his emphasis was on Holy Spirit baptism.  In any case, since I said I would respond I will do so here thinking I might as well make an article out of my response. 

When one reads the gospels the very first mention of the subject of baptism comes with the introduction of John the Baptist.  Mark says, "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."  (Mark 1:5 NKJV)  We know Jesus when baptized, by John, "came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him."  (Matt. 3:16 NKJV)  So our very first introduction to the subject of baptism relates it to water, not the Holy Spirit. 

However, John did prophecy of two other baptisms to come.  He says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  (Mat 3:11 NKJV) 

It is very important to note who will be doing the baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.  Will it be the apostles, will it be man?  No, for the text says "He," a reference to Jesus, which means what?  If you are going to receive Holy Spirit baptism it will not be at the hands of men.  It will have to come directly from heaven itself.  Jesus will be the administrator. 

But, it means even more.  It means it cannot be a command for it is something Christ does for you.  In other words, it is a baptism you cannot obey.  It is something you receive, not something you do.  Pentecostals ought to keep this in mind because it is going to cause problems down the road.  Indeed, it is going to cause problems before one even finishes the book of Matthew. 

In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus speaking to the apostles said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJV)  The reader already knows enough from what has been said previously that this is a command for water baptism for it is the only baptism men can administer.  Men could baptize others with water but not with the Holy Spirit.  Only Jesus could do that. 

Furthermore, the command of the Great Commission was to teach those they baptized to go out and do the same with others--make disciples and baptize them—thus making the Great Commission a perpetual command for the ages.  This means in Eph. 4:5 when Paul said there was "one baptism" we know which one it was. 

Before the time of Paul's writing of the book of Ephesians, there had been two baptisms--water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism (the baptism of fire being yet future at the Day of Judgment).  However, by the time Paul wrote the book of Ephesians, scholars say sometime between 61 and 64 AD, only one baptism remained.  This was approximately 30 years after Jesus had ascended back into heaven and Paul now says as he writes there is but one baptism. 

This puts Pentecostals in a tight spot.  If they say we still have Holy Spirit baptism then they must deny we have water baptism.  If they say we still have both they make Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, out to be a liar for that makes two baptisms rather than one. 

Did Jesus speak about baptizing some in the Holy Spirit?  Yes, he did, but to whom?  It was to those with whom he met in Luke 24:33-49.  It was with those who were to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49 NKJV)  It was to those who would first preach "repentance and remission of sins … in His name … beginning at Jerusalem."  Now who did that?  Was Peter the first one?  Did he preach baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) "beginning at Jerusalem"?  Yes, he did. 

In the book of John starting with chapter 13 and going through chapter 17 Jesus is with the apostles he had chosen at the Last Supper.  Here he again speaks about this select group being baptized with the Holy Spirit or words to that effect (John 14:16-18, 26, 16:13). 

Luke, in the book of Acts, speaks of "the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2) and then says, "to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:3-5 NKJV) 

Thus the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to a select few, not to all Christians.  All Christians received the Holy Spirit but not all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and there is a difference.  Many received spiritual gifts and thus had a measure of the Holy Spirit in that special sense as well, but the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to those few Jesus chose.  I remind the reader that while Holy Spirit baptism had to come directly from heaven spiritual gifts could be received at the hands of the apostles.  "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given."  (Act 8:18 NKJV) 

Even spiritual gifts were not to last endlessly until the Day of Judgment.  Paul says, in Eph. 4:11-14 (NAS), "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming."  

Apostles and prophets were obviously men with spiritual gifts.  Are there, apostles and prophets, still with us today?  The reader ought to highlight the word "until" in the above passage.  Words do have meaning.  "Until" places a time limit.  Then note the last verse that begins with "As a result."  The result is we will not be carried away "by every wind of doctrine" thus the earth will still be here when the apostles and prophets are gone and so will every wind of doctrine which we will not be carried away by. 

A passage that is even a little clearer is 1 Cor. 13:8-10, "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge (miraculous spiritual--DS), it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."  Some say this refers to Jesus' second coming.  Does it?  It is hard to see how you or I need to be told that there will not be prophecy in heaven.  Is that not self-evident?  Let me tell you what is "perfect" in addition to Jesus--his completed revelation to man in his word, the New Testament itself.  Do you doubt the word of God is perfect?  See Psalms 19:7. 

The one who takes issue with me says, "In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian baptism in the name of the Lord.  Prove that it does."  If you recall John 3:5 reads as follows, "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (NAS)  Well, what are the other options?  Is it "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"  That is how this sincere man would have it read, but I think it is readily seen that this will not work in the context of how the sentence is phrased. 

He also argues that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12 all refer to Holy Spirit baptism, not water baptism.  I have already shown that since there is only one baptism today, according to Paul, then it is an either/or option--either it is Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism.  If it is Holy Spirit baptism then the baptism Jesus commanded in the Great Commission is of no effect today and you cannot carry out the Great Commission. 

In Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"  By using the word "us" Paul includes himself.  Let us hear Ananias at the time of Paul's baptism, Acts 22:16, "'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'"  It sounds to me like the responsibility is on Paul to "arise and be baptized."  It sounds like it is something Paul can attend to.  He can't if it is Holy Spirit baptism as my critic claims.  He will have to wait on Jesus to do that.  Thus my critic is in error. 

Gal. 3:27 reads as follows, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS)  Am I baptized "into Christ" or am I baptized by Christ?  Holy Spirit baptism is by Christ, not into Christ.  If Christ both baptizes one and puts one into himself (salvation is in Christ--2 Tim. 2:10) then if you are lost it looks like it is his fault since there is something he did not do for you.  I can obey the command for water baptism but I cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism for Jesus has the responsibility for that.  I have not clothed myself with Christ, and cannot do so, if it is out of my hands which would be the case if this passage refers to Holy Spirit baptism. 

Finally, Col. 2:12, which he says is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, reads as follows with me including verses 11 and 13 in order to read the text in context.  "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions." (NAS) 

Beginning with Abraham if a male child was not circumcised the eighth day he fell out of covenant relationship with God.  This remained true on up through the entirety of the Mosaical Era.  You can read about it in Gen. 17:12-14.  If one is in covenant relationship with God he is a child of God.  He may or may not remain faithful and thus can be lost later but at the time he becomes a child of God he is saved. 

I have a question.  In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, after the giving of the Great Commission, when were those gathered there, the three thousand, placed into a covenant relationship with God?  Was it before water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?  Water baptism was necessary both for the forgiveness of sins and for the reception of the Holy Spirit and was prior to both.  Without the forgiveness of sins first, there was no covenant relationship with God, not under the new covenant. 

It would be good, perhaps, to quote Acts 2:38 here: "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) 

Circumcision placed one into covenant relationship with God under the Law of Moses.  When were people placed in that relationship in Acts 2--was it before or after the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit?  One can readily see it was before the receiving of the Holy Spirit but after water baptism.  If you have received "remission of sins" you are saved and in a covenant relationship with God.  Circumcision in the covenant of Christ, in Christianity, is baptism from the heart of faith for the remission of sins in water, not Holy Spirit baptism.  In that act, when based on faith, sins are cut away (removed).  Colossians 2:11-13 is a reference to water baptism. 

But, sometimes it is good to argue against ourselves so, putting myself in my critic's shoes, I would come back and say have you not read Rom.2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God"? (NKJV) 

The same Paul who wrote Colossians wrote Romans.  We shall tie them together.  I remind the reader my critic believes the talk about baptism in Rom. 6, the first several verses, is a reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit.  But, Paul says in Rom 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."  There are two points to be made.  (1) You cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism thus his argument fails when he says the baptism of Romans 6 is Holy Spirit baptism.  (2) When were they set free from sin according to Paul?  Answer--when they obeyed.  

This excursion off on Romans 6 throws light on Rom. 2:29.  As this passage—Rom. 2:29--relates back to Col. 2:12 it shows, when combined with the study of Romans 6, that one cannot divorce faith from obedience.  Obedience is from the heart.  What is in the heart to produce this obedience?  Faith!  When understood that obedience is a part of saving faith, that there is no such thing as saving faith apart from obedience, I readily concede that salvation is by that kind of faith.  This faith always includes as an integral part of itself obedience. 

The trouble is the advocates of salvation by faith are generally such as do not define faith this way.  Their faith does not necessarily include any ideas of obedience thus water baptism is just kind of an option if I get to it, if I do it, when I do it, sort of thing.  When God says jump you cannot say I will if I want to, and when I want to, if I decide to.  That is neither faith nor obedience, it is rebellion.  How can one claim a circumcision of heart and talk of having the Spirit all the while saying it does not matter whether you obey what the Spirit has said, you can be saved whether you obey or do not obey?  Jesus, a man full of the Spirit, did not disobey a single commandment but we do and say it is okay and that we have the Spirit.     

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit still exists today then along with it we must have as a necessity those things that accompany it which include the spiritual gifts of the first century.  All Holy Spirit baptized individuals (the apostles) had miraculous spiritual gifts (2 Cor. 12:11-12).   Who ever heard of having the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not having spiritual gifts?  Do we have prophets today, do we have miracle workers today, do we still have revelation being given today?  Let each reader judge for themselves. 

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