Apollos and Baptism

There are many mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know more about than we do with Apollos, the eloquent evangelist, ranking near the top among such New Testament characters. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. What makes Apollos mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus, knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God" explained to him.

It is relatively certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there, and the church leaders, knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he, in close association with them, would have soon learned the difference himself. It is thus highly probable that Apollos had never been in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, if ever.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge on him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know, for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation, denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental doctrine. Being well acquainted with Paul, who had lived with them for a time and with whom they had traveled, they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher, you must teach the truth. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila. He had already been baptized with John's baptism, which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted, they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses, but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven, they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism, and so Apollos, having been baptized once with John's baptism, did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began, it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples, they were cleansed, for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? When your sins have been remitted, they are remitted. Yes, remission at that point in time looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross, which was yet to come, but they were assured of the remission of their sins, having believed and obeyed what they had been taught, including baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism, nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do, you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally, was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach, we know they were not of that camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector, but even so, if you read Luke 7:29, you will see that tax collectors were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos, beginning in Acts 19:1, we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed from there and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos, and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1, that Paul found there "some disciples," referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit, Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now, why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19 is "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38), which they should have known about.

Now, here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation is "into"--DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized too, but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time, starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the time of either his imprisonment, death, or the day of Pentecost, when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. This was a short period of time of maybe a year or two, approximately, when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized, he was saved, having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time. John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

The twelve men at Ephesus would have been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost, when the baptism authorized by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter, anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. John’s baptism looked forward to Christ's death, while that of Jesus looked back.

In closing, I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts regarding salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1), and yet were not baptized. Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, '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 literal translation is "into"-- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Mat 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple will be baptized, for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before one can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning about Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these twelve men at Ephesus and baptize them?

Here is the clincher-- why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? Remember, he says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2, Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then, in verse 3, immediately following, he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life. Paul tied belief and baptism together. Do you?

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

The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its relationship with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I encourage the reader to compare this passage, as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted, with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what is being said.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy, and we are justified by his grace. To be saved is to be justified. If you are not justified, you are not saved. But is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is defined, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1994, "1: formed or created again 2: spiritually reborn or converted." Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind the words of Jesus in John 3. Jesus says, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) What Paul taught in Titus 3:4-7 Jesus had already taught in John 3:3-5.

The word washed or washing is a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins that people get caught up in, "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 God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "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) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus-- Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that, but if we will be honest, he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means, and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version both say, “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5 ESV) rather than “through” which the NKJV uses. It is all one and the same.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thought only--that salvation is all God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. It is basically unconditional on man’s part. My mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning. Noah is a case in point.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood, but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not mean the thing required of him is a work that merits or earns salvation.

Noah had to build an ark to be saved because God required it, but it was not wood and pitch in the form of a ship and hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest. It was God’s grace that told Noah beforehand what was coming, the flood, and how to save himself. God’s grace saved Noah, but not without effort on Noah’s part. That effort consisted of believing and obeying. It is the same for you and me today.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man was ever saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact that God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse we read it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works, and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was Noah’s ark building. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now, let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just like Noah. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word, God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the Titus 3:5 passage that Paul says "he saved us." When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves by our own power or by our own works. Without God baptism means nothing. Noah built the ark, but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. God could have sunk the ark at any point in time even after it floated. You and I are baptized, but that does not mean we saved ourselves. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 students. Sometime back, I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance, one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God." This had reference to the early years of Christianity.

The quote was taken from the textbook World History by Prentice Hall, written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year the book was put out was 2010. The reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that, I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it.

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential. I also add that this article was written originally years ago even though I am just now posting it. It was revised but very little.) 

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

The Cleansing of the Church at Ephesus

How was the church at Ephesus cleansed from sin? To be cleansed from sin is to be saved. I think most in Christendom are well aware of the famous Ephesian passage found in chapter two, verses eight and nine, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” (NAS) Many, many passages of the New Testament teach that salvation is a matter of God’s grace (Acts 15:11, Rom. 3:24, Gal. 2:21, 5:4, Eph. 1:7, 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:16, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:13). I have listed most of them here so the reader will know I am well aware of them.

I am thankful it is that way. If salvation were by works, a person might well come up short; the Bible teaches he would (Rom. 3:23). That is exactly what happened to the Jewish people under the Law of Moses. None was able to keep it. “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) I think we are all glad salvation is a matter of God’s grace, versus works, for works demanded perfection.

God’s grace, which gives us salvation, is granted to us as a result of faith we possess. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (Rom. 5:1-2 NAS) “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” (Eph. 2:8 NAS) There are many other passages teaching that we are saved by faith. Here are quite a number of them: John 3:14-16, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 20:31, Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, 1 Tim. 1:16, Heb. 11:6, 1 John 5:13, Rom. 3:26, 28, 30, 5:1, 11:20, Gal. 2:16, 3:24, 26, Eph. 2:8, Philippians 3:9, 1 Peter 1:9. These were again listed that the reader might know I am fully aware of them.

The question that arises, however, is what is this faith that justifies, that gives us God’s grace? I am not asking what the object of the faith is, for we know that. I am asking what the nature of this faith is. Many, perhaps most, are persuaded today (and have been since the Reformation) that it is merely a state of the mind regarding a belief one has in Jesus, who he is, and what he has accomplished for us. It is mental assent to the teachings of the scriptures about him. This is the faith that it is said saves. I certainly agree with that as far as it goes, but it stops short, too short.

One must not only believe what the scriptures teach about Jesus--who he was, what he accomplished--but faith also commits us to believe the man himself, believe what he said, and act on it. If faith does not lead to action, it is dead faith (James 2:17). James says it is “useless.” (James 2:20 NAS) Even in this world, as regards worldly matters, how can we say we have faith in a man when we will not take the man at his word?

The faith the Ephesians had that resulted in their cleansing from sin was the faith they had in what Jesus taught them through his inspired representatives. Paul was an inspired man, but the Holy Spirit, whether speaking through Paul or through any other apostle or first-century prophet, did not speak on his own initiative. “He will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak…he shall take of mine, and shall disclose it to you.” (John 16:13-14 NAS--the words of Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit) Thus, the Holy Spirit spoke the words of Jesus, and Jesus was thus their teacher.

Paul said later in the book of Ephesians that Jesus cleansed the church, “by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:26 NAS) “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:25-26 NAS)

Who was cleansed that way? Those Paul said earlier that had been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). The washing of water with the word is clearly a reference to baptism. What did Jesus teach about baptism? “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NAS) “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NAS)

John 3:5 and Eph. 5:26 teach the same thing. The Spirit gave the word. The Spirit working through the word works on our spirit, if we will allow it to do so, changing our thinking, our attitudes, our desires, and our will, bringing us to the point where we are ready to put the old man to death and be baptized to arise in “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4 NAS) To be cleansed by the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26) is the same as to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Furthermore, in scripture, the church (Eph. 5:25-26) and the kingdom (John 3:5), generally, not always but generally, are interchangeable terms. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. When he used those keys, by preaching the gospel on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and people believed and obeyed, they were added to the church, one and the same as the kingdom that Peter was opening with his keys.

Were the Ephesians saved by grace through faith “before” they were cleansed? What was the church, the church being the members, cleansed of, if not sin? Can you be saved without first being cleansed of sin? They were saved by grace through faith when cleansed of sin by the washing of water with the word. That washing was done by “the obedience of faith.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS) Paul said he had received grace and apostleship, “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS)

Paul himself, obviously a church member, was told at his own conversion, “Why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 NAS) Paul had experienced the same washing and for the same reason the church had at Ephesus. No, water itself cannot wash away sins, but it can if God has made the decision that that is the time and place where he will act in response to a person’s faith. Some have said baptism is a test of faith, and I do not argue with them.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, “became furious” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) when told he needed to go wash in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy. He did not want to do it that way. His faith had brought him thus far to Elisha, and he felt that should be good enough. Elisha should just come out and “stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Obedience of faith had no place in his thinking. One is reminded of today.

No, the water of the Jordan had no magical power to heal Naaman, but faith in what God told Naaman to do, a faith strong enough to get him to act simply because God said to do it, was the faith that made the difference. Naaman is an excellent example of a man who experienced two types of faith. The first failed him in obtaining his objective. Why? Because it was based on his preconceived ideas of how God should do things.

When told to go wash in the Jordan seven times, "Naaman became furious, and went away and said, 'Indeed, I said to myself, 'He (reference to Elisha, God's prophet—DS) will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.''" (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Naaman's faith that failed was faith in his own idea of how God should act. Naaman admits as much when he says, "I said to myself."

His later faith that brought Naaman healing was based not on Naaman's personal thinking but on what God said—"Go and wash in the Jordan seven times." (2 Kings 5:10 NKJV) This was the faith that brought healing when his faith became strong enough to become obedient to God's word.

This illustrates man's faith today in the spiritual realm with regard to baptism. There are two types of faith in what is commonly referred to as Christendom, as it relates to our salvation. The one says we will stop here (at the point of faith--mental assent) and do it this way. We have gone far enough; let God do the rest. The other faith says God said to do it (be baptized) for this reason (the remission of sins--Acts 2:38), I believe him, and I will do what he says because I believe. Both have what men generally call faith, but clearly, the faith is not the same.

There is also a question that needs to be asked. If Paul did not consider baptism to be salvation by works, why should we consider it to be salvation by works today? I have never heard a direct answer to that question. Paul tells the Ephesians they have been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and then tells them at the same time they have been cleansed by the washing of water through the word (Eph. 5:26). He doesn’t miss a beat, doesn’t seem in the least to feel he has contradicted himself, so why should we feel that the two passages are contradictory? Why do we feel we have to try and devise a way to explain away the obvious meaning of the phrase "the washing of water?"

But there is much more in proof of the point I am making. In Eph. 1:7, Paul says, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” (NAS) In him is a reference, obviously, to Jesus who shed his blood for us. How does one get into him, into Jesus Christ? Gal. 3:27 says we were “baptized into Christ” (NAS) and so does Rom. 6:3, “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” (NAS) I know of no passage in the New Testament anywhere that tells one how to get into Christ other than through baptism.

If you were to start through the book of Ephesians and start marking every passage you come to that talks about different things that are found “in him,” “in Christ,” “in the Beloved,” here is some of what you would come up with: (1) every spiritual blessing--Eph. 1:3, (2) grace--Eph. 1:6, (3) redemption--Eph. 1:7, (4) an inheritance--Eph. 1:10-11, (5) sealed with the Holy Spirit--Eph. 1:13, (6) seated us in heavenly places--Eph. 2:6, (7) kindness toward us--Eph. 2:7, (8) his workmanship--Eph. 2:10, (9) brought near by the blood of Christ--Eph. 2:13, (10) partakers of the promise--Eph. 3:6. But one must note that all of these blessings are in, not outside of, but in Christ. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NAS) How does one enter Christ? By baptism. If one is clothed with Christ, he is in Christ.

Paul says elsewhere in the book of Ephesians, “we are members of his body.” (Eph. 5:30 NAS) But, then Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12:13 how we get into that body, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NAS) What is Christ the Savior of according to Paul in Ephesians? “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, he himself being the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5: 23 NAS) This is the same body we are baptized into, that is, if we are in it, for that is the only way the scriptures give of entering into it--not by baptism alone but by the obedience of faith that results in baptism. The body of Christ, being the church (Eph. 1:22-23), is that which was cleansed "with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV)

Where is grace found? The Bible tells us, “Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NAS) Paul tells the Ephesians that this grace is “bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:6 NAS) Again, how does one get into Christ, the Beloved, according to the scriptures? We have already answered that. When one is led by faith to believe Jesus and obey him in baptism for the remission of sins, he enters into Christ, into the realm of grace by which he is saved.

In the book of Acts, chapter 19, Paul comes to Ephesus and finds 12 men there who are disciples. He asks them this question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2 NAS) They respond no, they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul then says, “Into what then were you baptized?” (Acts 19:3 NAS) Please note this one thing--Paul takes it for granted that if they were Christians, they had been baptized. He doesn’t ask them if they had been baptized. Why not? Paul doesn’t ask them because he knows what it takes to become a Christian and be saved. “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16 KJV, Ananias speaking to Saul, a believer, before Saul’s baptism)

One also ought to note the first thing Paul did with these 12 men, after learning their situation, was to have them “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5 NAS) Yes, Paul taught baptism at Ephesus. Paul stayed in Ephesus at least two years (see Acts 19:10) after this event, so when Paul said later in Ephesians that the church was cleansed by the washing of water with the word, there is no doubt he knew from personal experience all about baptism at Ephesus. There is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian, for Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) that all disciples be baptized. Paul either baptized them personally or saw to it that they were baptized by one or more of those who helped with the work. Either that or he disobeyed Christ, for which disciple was it that Christ said need not be baptized?

Faith is not just something to be believed but also obeyed. One must obey the gospel to be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-8). In a sense, the gospel is the faith (Jude 3); it is that body of doctrine that is to be believed, but within that body of doctrine that constitutes the faith, there are things that must be obeyed as well as believed. In addition to mental assent to the truth about Jesus as revealed in the scripture one must repent of sins (Acts 17:30), one must confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10), and one must be baptized into Christ, baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27). Faith, the faith that saves, is not a dead faith but an active one. It is by faith that a man does these things, by faith because he heard the words of God and believed them enough to take them to heart and obey them.

Do not allow yourself to be misled. A person does not believe Jesus who believes the doctrine that says, “he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved,” for that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said just the opposite.

I have asked this question before, but have never gotten an answer. If Jesus wanted man to know that baptism was essential to the remission of sins, the cleansing from sin, how would he say it in a way to get man to understand it? He could not say “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 KJV) for he already said that via the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter, and men will not accept it.

How would he say it to make it plain and simple enough so all could understand it? No one has yet answered that question. The truth is, Jesus has stated it as clearly as it can be stated by mere words alone. Men will either accept it or reject it and thereby be judged.

Have you been cleansed with the washing of water by the word? Will you be one with those saints in Ephesus Paul wrote to, or are you going to be another kind of Christian unknown to the church at Ephesus?

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

 

Is Water Baptism in John 3:5

From time to time, one is surprised by the ideas that people come up with. One idea that was presented to me and surprised me was the thought that the water mentioned in John 3:5 where Jesus says, “most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV) had reference not to baptism but to the water of childbirth. I was aware that others explain the water away in other ways as not being baptism, but this childbirth explanation was a new one to me.

In any case, I thought it good to write yet another article on the subject, dealing this time not so much on biblical arguments, for that I have already done in other articles, but upon the historical record to show that today’s interpretations of water in John 3:5 as being something other than baptism are modern-day explanations. While it may seem that many support those views today, it was not that way in the past; in fact, just the opposite.

In the book entitled The Gospel Plan of Salvation, first published in 1874, by T. W. Brents, I quote as follows: “The religious world, with one voice, from the days of Christ until quite recently, has ascribed this language to water baptism.” (Page 490) He goes on to quote a Dr. Wall as follows: “There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language, but what understands it of baptism.” (Page 490, a quote from Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 147)

Burton Coffman, in his Commentary on John, page 81, says, “It is only quite recently in Christian times that interpretations of this verse have been devised to exclude its obvious reference to Christian baptism.” He goes on to quote John Boys, the Dean of Canterbury, a famous preacher and scholar of the Church of England in the seventeenth century who said of his time (1600’s) that some few (he says “few”--not “many”) were saying that the water of the passage we are speaking of, John 3:5, “are not to be construed of external baptism.”

Boys is further quoted as saying, “Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, in the commentaries on this place (3:5), along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and many more, yea most of the Fathers—Hooker, a man of incomparable reading, openeth his mouth wider, avowing peremptorily that all the ancients … have construed this text, as our church doth, of outward baptism.” (as quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 81).

One last quote from Coffman’s commentary is from the famous church historian Phillip Schaff, of the nineteenth century, Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, who said, “It seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5 from baptism. Calvin’s interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the R. Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.” (quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 82)

Online there is an article entitled, “Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers,” from whence I quote this: “Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord's words in John chapter 3 that to be ‘born again’ and ‘born of water and the Spirit’ refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevant sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition).” No author is listed for this article but the home page suggests it is by Phil Porvaznik. In any case, there are extensive quotations from what the author says are all the church fathers through the fifth century to back up his statement of what the thinking was in the early years of the church.  As I prepare to post this, the article is still online at:

https://www.evangelizationstation.com/oldsite/htm_html/Sacraments/Baptism/born_again.htm

Hopefully, it will remain online for some time to come, but there are no guarantees of that.

Because an interpretation is old does not make it right, but conversely, because an interpretation is new does not make it right either. Christianity is now about 2,000 years old. For about 1500 years of that, most who considered themselves Christians understood the passage in John 3:5 pertaining to being born of water as a clear reference to baptism. Modern-day interpretations that differ from that should not be considered infallible simply because they are modern. Not everything new is better than the old. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jer. 6:16 NKJV)

Here is a good way to read John 3:5 when people want to give a new interpretation to the water of the passage. Read it transposing the meaning they propose into the passage and see if it makes sense. For example, the passage reads “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now transpose the meaning given by my antagonist, “unless one is born of the water of childbirth and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” That is like saying unless one is born a human being he cannot enter the kingdom of God. As the kids today would say, “Well, duh.”

There is no warrant for understanding the water of John 3:5 being anything other than baptism. We see multitudes of people being baptized in water in the book of Acts. That practice, plus many other passages emphasizing the need for water baptism in the scriptures, ought to settle any questions about the matter.

I understand I have not discussed John 3:5 with regard to making scriptural arguments. I said in the beginning that the purpose of this article was to throw some light on the historical record and not do what I have already done before in several different articles where I have discussed the passage in depth from a scriptural perspective.  

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

Inside Outside Christ

One cannot overemphasize the importance of being “in Christ.”  “In” is a reference to location.  Wherever I am, it automatically excludes me from being anywhere else.  I cannot be physically present in your house and in someone else’s house at the same time.  In Christianity, one is either “in Christ” or outside him.  There are no other possible alternatives.

To be in Christ means:

1)  Forgiveness.  The apostle Paul, speaking to the Ephesian Christians, says, “God in Christ has also forgiven you.” (Eph. 4:32 NKJV)  “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)  “There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Rom. 3:10 NKJV)  If you desire forgiveness of your sins you must be “in Christ.”  “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV)

2)  Redemption.  Paul, in Romans 3:24, speaks of “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (NKJV)  We are redeemed from sin and its consequences.  “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7 NKJV)  Jesus purchased us with his blood, the price for the forgiveness of our sins.  “You were bought at a price.” (1 Cor. 6:20 NKJV)  Peter tells us the price, “You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold … but with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19 NKJV)  Things are redeemed at a cost.  Redemption is “in Christ,” not outside him.

3)  Salvation.  In 2 Tim. 2:10, Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (NKJV)  Isn’t that the thing we all long for?  It is found “in Christ,” not outside him.

4)  Promise of Life.  Paul speaks of “the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 1:1 NKJV)  Even if death were simply a state of unconsciousness, which it is not, do we not all desire life?  The promise of life is in Jesus, not outside him.

5)  Eternal Life.  “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23 NKJV)  In Christ, there need be no more fear of death, or of sickness, or illness, or of separation.  “And God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Rev. 21:4 NKJV)  But this is “in Christ,” not outside him.

6)  No Condemnation.  “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:1 NKJV) It is a wonderful thing not to have to carry around the burden of sin, but this is only “in Christ,” not outside of him.  We are not condemned “in Christ.”

7)  Alive to God.  We are “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:11 NKJV)  Man cannot come to God in any way other than through Christ.  Jesus’ own words were, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV)  “In Christ” we are alive to God. Outside Christ, we are dead to God.  This verse means a life living for God.  You cannot live for God outside Christ.

8)  A New Creation  “Therefore, 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)  “New creation” is “new creature” in the New American Standard translation.  Do you want a new start in life?  Do you need one?  It is only found “in Christ.”  A new life, a new beginning, is found “in Christ,” not outside him.

9)  The Love of God.  In Rom. 8:38-39, Paul tells Christians there is no outside power that “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (NKJV) Yes, sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:2) but in Christ those sins are forgiven.  God loves us even as sinners (John 3:16, Rom. 5:8) but in Christ the floodgates of God’s love are wide open toward us.  You can rest assured of God’s love for you “in Christ.”

10)  God’s kindness.  “That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:7 NKJV)  “Through Christ Jesus” is the same as “in Christ Jesus” (see the ASV, ESV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, etc.).  God’s kindness comes to us “in Christ,” not outside of him.

11)  Sanctification.  Paul in writing to the church at Corinth begins his letter “to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord … .” (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV)  We are sanctified in Christ which means we are made holy.  We become consecrated to God in Christ.   One cannot be made holy outside Christ.  Holiness is found “in Christ,” not outside Christ.

12)  Grace.  Do you want to be saved by grace?  It is the only way any of us can be saved.  If so, grace is found “in Christ,” not outside him.  “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NKJV)  If grace is found there, that is where you and I need to be, “in Christ.”  If you are told where riches are to be found for the taking the wise individual goes to that location.

13)  Every spiritual blessing.  “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” (Eph. 1:3 NKJV) Spiritual blessings are found “in Christ,” not outside him.  What are these blessings?  That is the very thing we are discussing in this article, incomplete as it is.

14)  The righteousness of God.  “For he has made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21 NKJV)  “In him” is clearly a reference to Jesus.  In Jesus we find our righteousness, “in Christ,” not outside Christ.

Surely any open-minded person who believes the Bible to be the word of God can see the absolute necessity of being “in Christ” for salvation and to obtain the many blessings associated with being “in Christ.”  Thus, the only question remaining is how one enters into Christ?  The Bible plainly tells us.  “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom 6:3 NKJV)  “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)

No, baptism will not bring you into Christ without faith and repentance, but baptism is the final step one takes to enter into Christ.  How do I know?  The Bible just told me so in the passages just quoted.

  

Few in Christendom believe baptism is essential.  They think they can get “in Christ” some other way, although the passage that teaches that way has never been provided.  We, as human beings, are heavily influenced by what the majority thinks.  If your own thinking contradicts the thought of the majority it seems natural to question yourself.  How can I be right and everyone else be wrong?  In addition to that, there are negative consequences for bucking the consensus of thought.  There is pressure to conform.  Who wants to be ostracized?  Who wants to alienate friends and family?  It is easy to tell yourself baptism does not matter because that seems to be what the majority of Christendom has concluded. 

However, I am reminded that Peter and the apostles said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29 NKJV)  They were speaking for themselves but no doubt the same principle applies to us as well.  One is also reminded of Paul’s statement to the Galatians, “Do I seek to please men?  For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Gal. 1:10 NKJV)

To be “in Christ” or to be out of Christ, that is the decision all persons of accountable age must make.  I will close this with words from an old hymn often sung, “trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”  If you have not obeyed Jesus in baptism it is past time.  Today is the day of salvation.  Today is the day to enter Christ.

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

 

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.]