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.]

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Moses and the Waters of Marah--A Lesson For US

When the children of Israel left Egypt, led by Moses, the first major event one reads about in the book of Exodus after the Red Sea crossing is found in Exodus 15:22-26, the crisis at the waters of Marah. I say crisis for that was how the children of Israel perceived it. They had been traveling three days in the wilderness and had found no water to drink during that time.

Was that a crisis? It was when you consider how much water was required for this exodus. In Ex. 12:37-38 we get some idea of the numbers. It reads as follows: "And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds." (ESV) There may have been over 2 million men, women, and children needing water, as well as all the flocks and herds of livestock. You do not carry that kind of water in canteens.

After this three-day journey without finding water, they come to Marah, a place that has water, but water so bitter it cannot be used for drinking. In fact, according to the notes in the NET Bible, the Hebrew word "Marah" means bitter. The Bible says, "The people complained against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?'" (Ex. 15:24 NKJV) One has to understand Moses was only God's representative; thus, to complain against Moses was to complain against God (see Ex. 16:8). Moses individually had no power to provide them with water; they knew that, so the complaint was against God.

This manifested a lack of faith in God. How? Back in Ex. 3:16-17 before the plagues, before Moses ever entered Egypt after his personal exile, God told Moses at the burning bush incident to, "Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, 'The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, 'I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt; and I have said I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.' ' " (NKJV)

After entering Egypt, Moses did this according to Ex. 4:29-30 with Aaron being his spokesman. He was also directed to perform miracles before the elders as you read about in Ex. 4:1-9, and according to Ex. 4:30 he did so, as signs of confirmation that it was God who was behind this affair. Afterwards, we know of the plagues that hit Egypt which were further confirmation that God was intent on bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt into "a land flowing with milk and honey." Add to these miracles the Red Sea encounter where the waters were parted for the children of Israel but collapsed on the Egyptians and the children of Israel should have seen God's determination to hold fast to his promise to them.

Why then would the children of Israel believe that God would allow them to perish for want of water at Marah after seeing all he had already done on their behalf? Did they not believe God? Did they not trust him after all they had both heard and seen? According to the footnotes in the NET Bible the Hebrew word translated "complained" or "murmured" or "grumbled," depending on your translation, "is a much stronger word than 'to grumble' or 'to complain.' It is used almost exclusively in the wilderness wandering stories, to describe the rebellion of the Israelites against God … They were not merely complaining--they were questioning God's abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence."

That they needed water there was no doubt. That they were in want there is no doubt. What should they have done rather than rebel? Well, I can think of several things--trust in God for deliverance, pray to him, ask Moses not in a complaining or murmuring way but in a supplicating way to intervene with God on their behalf. God had told them he would bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey. If they believed in the goodness of God, that he would not lie to them, then surely they should have seen he was not about to let them die of thirst. But, the Psalmist had this to say about them, "They did not believe in God, and did not trust in his salvation." (Psalms 78:22 NKJV) That was said of them at a later date in their history but was true of them basically from the beginning as their first rebellion, based on a lack of faith, was at the Red Sea (Psalms 106:7).

A lesson for all Christians in this is the need to trust in God in our own personal crises. If we are faithful God is on our side and if we will trust and obey and be patient he will work things out for us. This does not mean he will allow us to live eternally upon the earth. It is appointed for man once to die (Heb. 9:27 NKJV). Nor does it mean we will be blessed in the ways we might like--say fame, fortune, and prestige--but it does mean he will see us through our life’s struggles and help us through the valley of the shadow of death (Psa. 23:4).

However, that is not the main lesson I want to get from this Old Testament story. God did come to the rescue of the children of Israel and provide water, but how did he do it? The Bible says he told Moses to cast a tree he showed him into the bitter waters at Marah which having done so the waters were made fit to drink (Ex. 15:25 NKJV). However, it is my understanding that the Hebrew word denotes "wood" and not necessarily a tree, although either is possible; thus, the English Standard Version translates the word as a "log" rather than a tree while other translations say "a piece of wood." (CEV, GNB, NLT)

I want to ask the reader some questions to get to the main point of this article. What power was there in that tree or piece of wood to transform a body of water from bitter to pure sufficient to quench the thirst of perhaps as many as 2 million people with all their livestock? Not one bit of power--none at all. However, what would have happened had Moses not thrown the tree or wood into the water? Would the water have become drinkable had he not?

What power was there in the rod Moses had in his hand to part the Red Sea? God told him, "Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it." (Ex. 14:16 NKJV) None! But what if he had not done it?

What power was there in the rod Moses used to strike the rock, in a later incident where water was needed, to bring forth water out of the rock to provide for the people's thirst? (see Ex. 17:5-6) None! But what if he had not done it?

What power was there in the fiery serpent that God told Moses to make and put on a pole (he made it out of bronze) to heal those who had been bitten by poisonous serpents to save them from death if they would look at it? (see Numbers 21:8-9) None! You surely do not believe your doctor would treat you that way if bitten by a poison scorpion or rattlesnake do you? But, what about those who did not look at Moses' bronze serpent?

What power was there inherent in marching around the walls of Jericho, blowing trumpets, blowing a ram's horn, and shouting to get the walls of the city to fall down? (Joshua 6:2-5) None! But, what if they had not done it?

What power was there in the water of the Jordan River to cleanse Naaman of his leprosy? (2 Kings 5) None! Could all lepers have been cleansed of leprosy by doing what Naaman did? Was the power in the water? What if Naaman had not gone and washed 7 times as directed? (We know, don't we, for until he did so, having refused for a time, he remained leprous and was not cleansed.)

In John 9, Jesus meets a man blind from birth. The Bible says, "He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And he said to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing." (John 9:6-7 NKJV) What power was there in the water of the pool of Siloam to cure blindness? None at all! But what if he had not gone to the pool of Siloam?

Are you seeing a pattern? The God that spoke the universe into existence and who needs but speak and it is done does not need rods, or bronze serpents, special water treatments, or marching, or horn blowing, or anything else to achieve the end he desires. All he needs to do is speak and it is done but sometimes he chooses to work by means of agency. When he chooses to do so it becomes a matter of faith on our part--faith to believe and do or faithlessness to disbelieve and not do.

Naaman was a person who had a hard time believing and doing. He just could not see the sense in it or the reason for it. Be that as it may, he was not healed until he believed enough to obey.

Let me drive the point home. It does not matter in the least whether you or I see a reason in a command God gives. Sometimes he gives commands just to test our obedience (Abraham being a case in point with the sacrifice of his son Isaac). Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, said to the Corinthians, "For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things." (2 Cor. 2:9 NKJV)

Many, many people who consider themselves to be Christians (the reality is they are not) cannot bring themselves to be baptized. Is it a command of God? They know it is (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, Rom. 6:3-4, etc.) but they cannot believe it is necessary for they cannot see any reason behind it. How often has one heard the phrase that "the water does not have anything to do with salvation?" It does if God says to be baptized. It fits into the same category of things we have discussed here.

I have asked the question before and never received an answer but I will ask it again. If Jesus (God) wanted you to know baptism was for the remission of your sins how would he have had to phrase it to get the message across to you, if you do not believe that to be the case? He actually said that exact thing, speaking through Peter via the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (NKJV) Then, in Acts 22:16, the Holy Spirit spoke of being baptized to wash away sins. Peter states it again as if we could not understand him in Acts 2:38 when he says, "there is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) and he said the man that would be saved would be the man that "believes and is baptized." (Mark 16:16)

People all over the world are convinced Jesus was in error when he said "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) believing the truth to be "he who believes and is baptized or not baptized, either way, will be saved." That is adding to the word of God and is just as dangerous as if a man were to say, "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved." Add to God's word or contradict it, either one, and face God in the judgment.

The lesson we need to learn from the event at the waters of Marah is that if God decides to use agency or means to save us, then so be it. We must either conform and throw that log or tree into the water, or forget about receiving the blessing. We either believe and obey, or disbelieve and do not obey and forfeit the blessing. The spiritual application is valid until the earth no longer exists. One must respect whatever agency or means God so desires to use to bring blessings and salvation to man. To fail to respect that is to show a lack of faith in God despite all protests to the contrary.

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

Faith, Works, Baptism, and Obedience

Many believe that since the Bible teaches justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) baptism is excluded as an act essential to salvation despite many passages that teach just the opposite (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, Eph. 5:26, 1 Cor. 12:13 compared with Eph. 5:23 [baptized into one body, Christ the Savior of the body], John 3:5, Gal. 3:26-27, etc.). It is the burden of this article to show the fallacy of this belief.

In the first place, the Bible teaches that baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done, just the opposite, as stated in Titus 3:5, "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." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is a reference to baptism and is excluded by Paul as being a work of righteousness which we have done that in itself saves us apart from God’s mercy. What is baptism then? It is a part of God’s means of extending his mercy to mankind. Baptism is God showing us kindness. It is God through grace giving us a means to be saved by his mercy.

Water baptism amounts to nothing, is worthless, without God behind it in his compassion for us. When Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan River for his cleansing from leprosy (2 Kings 5) it would not have made an ounce of difference without God being behind the command with the extension of his grace. The water did not cleanse Naaman, God did, but Naaman was not going to be cleansed without dipping in the Jordan those seven times, without obeying the command to do so. Why can’t we see the parallel with baptism in our day?

One acquainted with the New Testament cannot read Titus 3:5 without being reminded of John 3:5, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV) Paul, in Titus, is saying what Jesus said in John. To be saved in Titus is to enter the kingdom of God in John. To be saved is to be in the kingdom of God, where the saved are.

Indeed, Paul teaches justification by faith. "The just shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:17 NKJV) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV) "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

One cannot enter the waters of baptism without faith in what God said about doing so and expect the cleansing of sin. If I do not believe what God said about it I have not acted in faith and cannot be justified by faith.

In the book of Romans, from which I have just quoted, Paul is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Greeks. The Jews came to Christianity out of the background of Judaism and the Law of Moses. Much of what Paul writes in Romans is directed to the Jews whose inclination through much of the first century was to try and hang on to both the Law of Moses and to Christ at the same time. The Law of Moses was a law system, not a faith system. What was the problem with the Law of Moses, a works system of salvation?

Paul tells us, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, '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) James says, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV) This is the problem not just with the Law of Moses but with any and all law systems God might give man. As soon as a man violates one law, justice demands satisfaction--punishment--"the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) To violate a law of God, any law he gives, is unrighteousness, is sin. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4 KJV)

Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live. Law condemns all of us for we have all broken God's law. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV) Thus, "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16c NKJV) The word "the" in Gal 2:16 just quoted is not found in the original but was added by the translators in both instances. When translated without the additions, it reads as follows: "By works of law no flesh shall be justified." If you check an interlinear you will find this to be true. What is the point?

The point is, while it is true Paul had specific reference to the Law of Moses because that is the law his audience had in mind, he phrases his statement in such a way as to include all law. No one will ever get to heaven by perfect keeping of works of law. Paul says the same thing in Rom. 3:28 where again the word "the" has been added by translators and is not in the original. It thus should read as follows: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of ("the" omitted here is not in the original manuscripts--DS) law." (NKJV) Deeds are works.

A question thus arises. If I am not saved by works of law why be concerned with obedience? Paul knew this was what some would conclude and he begins to address that issue in Rom. 6:1 where he says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (NKJV) Remember it is "by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Paul never meant to imply that obedience was optional. Paul responds vigorously saying, "God forbid" (ASV, KJV), "By no means!" (ESV), "May it never be" (NAS), "Certainly not!" (NKJV) He says, "How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Rom. 6:2 NKJV)

He then says, "Do you not know," introducing the subject of baptism, "that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:3-4 NKJV) Whose death? Into Christ's death but watch it closely for up pops verse 8, "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him." (NKJV) So we are baptized into Christ's death but that is also the place where "we died with Christ." When we arise from this death we "should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) for we have been granted a new spiritual life and we should "present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead." (Rom. 6:13 NKJV) We have been "set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18 NKJV), but when? When we died to it, "For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Rom. 6:7 NKJV, see also Rom. 6:2) When did we die? In baptism (Rom. 6:4). Thus no baptism, then no death, then no being freed from sin. This is in perfect accord with Acts 2:38 and the long list of other passages on baptism referenced in the very first paragraph of this article.

Now who is Paul talking to? To Christians who have been justified by faith, not by works. Did Paul consider baptism to be a work of the kind of which he had been talking about by which a man could not be saved? Not at all! How then did he consider it? As a part of being justified by faith.

Paul begins the book of Romans with this statement in chapter 1 verse 5 saying he had been given grace and apostleship "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name's sake." (NAS) The NKJV says, "among all nations for his name" instead of "all the Gentiles." But what was the objective? Obedience of faith! Why? Because without obedience faith is dead and cannot save anyone and that is from the get-go, from the very beginning. "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:26 NKJV)

When Peter stands up on the Day of Pentecost and preaches the first gospel sermon ever, creates by his preaching faith in those who hear, and then tells them what to do in response to their question asking what they can do he responds by saying, "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) You cannot tell me they were justified by faith if their response was "I don't think so right now, maybe later." Nor can you tell me they were justified by faith if they failed to believe the word of God that baptism was for the remission of sins, just as Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said, for that would not be belief but unbelief or disbelief. It would be the same as calling God a liar.

Paul closes the book of Romans the same way he opened it, "has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith." (Rom. 16:26 NAS) “Obedience of faith” is obedience led by faith or obedience because of faith or out of faith. What does that mean then? Faith must precede obedience. The justifying faith Paul was talking about in the book of Romans was a faith that led to obedience. Faith must precede obedience before you can have obedience out of faith.

There has never been a baptism acceptable to God but what it was first preceded by faith and submitted to by faith. This in itself invalidates infant baptism as the infant is incapable of having faith. Faith saves because it believes God and does not doubt; therefore, it acts. Without obedience (acts, works, call it what you will), faith never really lives and is dead from the beginning and thus never saved the man at any point in time. If dead faith saved, the demons would be saved for James says they believe (James 2:19). The same could be said of those rulers who believed in Jesus but did not confess him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Baptism is the dividing line between living faith and dead faith. Why? Is it because I said so? No! It is because Paul said when we arise from baptism that we "should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27 NKJV). In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV). The old man died in baptism and we arise a new creation. If we are saved before baptism (a baptism growing out of faith) the question ought to be asked who is it that dies in baptism? Is it a saved man? Paul teaches that we die in baptism in the Romans 6:2-8 passage, but why would you want to put a saved man to death? Why kill a saved man? That is the position they put themselves in who believe we are saved by faith before baptism. This is a question that needs an answer.

I want to remind the reader once again of what Paul said of baptism in Titus 3:5, "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." (NKJV) God gave us baptism (the washing of regeneration) as a part of his saving mercy towards us, not as a work of righteousness which we have done that works our way to heaven.

Baptism puts us into Christ where salvation is. Paul says in this very book of Romans, where he promotes the doctrine of justification by faith, that there is "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:1 NKJV) In the same book he tells us how we got into Christ Jesus where there is no condemnation. He says, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus …" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV).

This idea of separating faith from baptism is all man's doing. You'll not find it in the Bible. Paul says in the Galatian letter, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV) How do you get into Christ? Paul tells us a second time in this passage, that is if we did not get it the first time in the Roman passage just quoted in the prior paragraph. But, Paul tells us more. What?

He tells us you cannot separate faith from baptism unless you do it on your own initiative. The word "for" beginning in verse 27 of Galatians 3 ties it to verse 26. You cannot separate the two sentences. There is more.

Can one put on Christ without baptism? Those who say you can ought to provide the passage that tells us that. According to this Galatian passage it is done by baptism. I have never found another passage anywhere that has given an alternative.

Paul says those who are sons of God were baptized and thereby put on Christ. There is a law of exclusion in play here. If you were not baptized you did not put on Christ in baptism and are therefore excluded from being a son of God.

To summarize, "the just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38 NKJV) but it is such a faith that when it hears it believes and obeys and is not indifferent to obedience. It is thus a living faith. It does not fear that obedience is working your way to heaven. Neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever feared that obedience would be looked upon by God as an attempt to work your way to heaven. Baptism is God’s extension of grace to us, his means of cleansing us, chosen by him, not us, and not a part of works of righteousness that we have done that merit salvation.  

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