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.]

Philip Preaching the Gospel in Samaria

 "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (Acts 8:12 NAS)

Most people with an elementary knowledge of the scriptures understand that the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.   If one wants to learn what one must do to be saved from sin it is a great place to start. This sermon was the first ever preached after Jesus’ resurrection and return to heaven where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father.   His blood had now been shed for the remission of the sins of man.  Full forgiveness was now possible.

After Peter’s preaching Jesus on that day of Pentecost, having made believers of approximately 3,000 souls, Peter exhorted them to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 NAS)   What was required for their salvation that day?   Faith, repentance, and baptism.

Who was saved that Day of Pentecost?   The text tells us, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41 NAS)  Who was saved?  Was it those who believed the word only?  Or, was it those who heard the word and acted on it, who repented and were baptized?  To ask is to answer.

We find a similar account in Acts 8 but this time a different Holy Spirit inspired preacher, Philip the Evangelist.  Here we see Philip preaching in the city of Samaria and the text tells us he “began proclaiming Christ to them.” (Acts 8:5 NAS) But, now watch what happened.  “When they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” (Acts 8:12 NAS)`

The Acts 8:12 passage parallels Acts 2:41.  What was the good news Philip preached?   Was it the gospel Peter preached?  Was it “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16 NAS)?  I am sure we can all agree on this.

The text says "they believed Philip" (Acts 8:12) with regard to what he was preaching.  This is the equivalent of "those who had received his word" with reference to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41.  When they believed Philip what did they do?  The text says "they were being baptized."  In Acts 2:41 when they received Peter's word what did they do?  They were baptized.   Thus we see that in the beginning of the church, of Christianity, of faith in Christ, that when the gospel was preached and believed or received it led to people being baptized.  There has to be a reason for that.

Is baptism a part of the gospel?  Is it a part of the good news?   It is if it is "for the forgiveness of your sins" as per Acts 2:38.  It is if Peter preached it.  It is if Philip preached it.  It is if these two Holy Spirit inspired men preached it.  It is if it is a part of God’s means of saving people, a part of God’s plan.  Saying this is not discounting faith in any way.   It is only those who first believe who benefit by baptism.   Baptism is the obedience of faith.   It is what a scriptural faith leads to.

Only when one receives the word, the gospel, only when one believes, is he baptized.  Those who did not receive the word did not believe it, were not baptized.  This pretty much tells us who has believed the gospel and who has disbelieved it.  If you believe something else, something other than the gospel, you are not baptized.  We ought to consider that seriously.

We know in both cases baptism was preached for how else were people led to be baptized? What led Philip's audience to be baptized if Philip did not preach it?  Where did they learn about baptism if he did not preach it?   Why were people baptized on the day of Pentecost under Peter's preaching if he did not preach it?  But, we do not have to guess about Peter's preaching for Peter's words were "repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS)

I am reminded of those living in the lifetime of John the Baptist who rejected John’s baptism. The Bible says, “But, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30 NAS)   We now live under King Jesus who has a baptism of his own for mankind.   Are we going to reject it?  Is not the baptism Jesus gives us God’s purpose for us?

If you have never been baptized for the remission of sins you are in a fight against God.   Don't be one of those who insist on being saved your way rather than the way taught by Peter and Philip, by the Holy Spirit.   You cannot win in a fight against God.   It is his narrow gate or the wide gate and the gate you enter makes all the difference (Matt. 7:13-14).  You cannot become a child of God by disobedience, by ignoring his word, by doing it the way my group believes. God only has one group--those who have done it his way.  It is "the Way."   The way of salvation.

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

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland on the road to Gaza and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (Isa. 53:7-8– DS) he preached Jesus to him.  And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached baptism was preached as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner.  When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized.  The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him it?  Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Without the remission of one’s sins a person cannot be saved.  

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS).  Here in Acts 8:35-36, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism.  This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him." 

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching - first Peter and now Philip.  In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached.  They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it.  Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted.  Which do you believe?

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

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3.”  I would refer the reader to that article first before reading this one.  It can be found on this site.  I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

The thrust of that prior article was that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that a person must do to have his/her sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) is the same thing he preached in his second sermon (Acts 3:19).

Here are the two passages side by side.

Acts 2:38	Acts 3:19
Repent	Repent
Be Baptized	Be Converted (NKJV) Return (NAS)
For The Remission of Sins	Sins Blotted Out

One can easily see the parallels.  However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, “be converted” (NKJV), “return” (NAS), “turn back” (CSB), “turn again” (ESV) rather than “be baptized” as in Acts 2:38.  How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin?  One must also remember Peter was speaking not from himself but through the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it.  The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that.  Why not?  If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins, is the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit going to tell a different group there is another way?

This was preaching that was interrupted, the preacher was taken into custody “as they spoke.” (Acts 4:1 NKJV)  There was to be no opportunity for baptism on that occasion.  The preaching began somewhat late in the day for it was around the hour of prayer which was 3 o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 3:1) when the lame man was healed by Peter.  The preaching began after a crowd gathered as a result of that.  We are also told after Peter and John were taken into custody and jailed they were held over until the next day for it was already evening (Acts 4:3).

This was not a long preaching event nor was there an opportunity for baptizing then and there.  This sermon made believers, about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).  Certainly, Peter and John could not have baptized 5,000 men alone.  They could have gotten help but that would have taken time and they were alone at the temple.

(Commentators are uncertain whether the number 5,000 in Acts 4 represents 5,000 new believers or is the total number of believers from the Day of Pentecost up through this day in the aggregate.  For our purposes, it does not matter, in either case it would still leave Peter and John with more to baptize than they could baptize alone.  If you take the 3,000 converts from the Day of Pentecost from the 5,000 here that would still leave the two of them with 1,000 each to baptize.  We will proceed as though the 5,000 were new disciples.)

Does this mean the 5,000 believers were not baptized?  Not at all.  It only means not on that evening by Peter and John.  We already have 3,000 baptized brethren in Jerusalem from the Day of Pentecost sermon and the twelve apostles plus others for “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) and who can say how many of them there were.

It was not going to be hard for the 5,000 to find out what was involved in being converted or turning back to the Lord.  The apostles had become well known in Jerusalem due to the miracles that had been done.  “Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Acts 2:43 NKJV)  Peter had the opportunity to preach in Acts 3 because he had just worked a miracle.  This day was not going to be the last opportunity for these believers to consult Peter or the other apostles or converts.  Where would you find them?  Generally, near the temple.  They would not be hard to find.

And, add to that fact, it is likely some or many of these 5,000 had already heard of what had happened and been taught and done on the Day of Pentecost.  Perhaps some had even been present and while not converted that day had impressions made on their hearts and minds going back to that time.  If so they likely knew baptism was a requirement for turning back to the Lord and likely knew where they could go to accomplish that.  When we want something done in our day we know where to go to get it done or how to find out how to get it done.  They would have been no different.

No doubt they were anxious to have their sins forgiven for Peter had earlier in his speech convicted them of their guilt in having Christ crucified (see Acts 3:13-15).  Peter also tells them, “Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.”(Acts 3:23 NKJV)  This is motivating speech.  A man must get right with God.  When a man is motivated enough he will seek out the ways and means of salvation.

If one believes the preaching of the apostles was inspired then one is saying the Holy Spirit was the one speaking, speaking through the apostles.  The Holy Spirit is God.  I think it probable, simply speculation here on my part and to be taken as such, that the reason Peter was not more specific on baptism in Acts 3:19 was because the Holy Spirit knew what the circumstances of that occasion were – no opportunity for immediate baptism.

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized.  “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity.  Peter was not an anti-Christ.  We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed.  Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

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

 

 

 

  

Is Denominational Baptism Scriptural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

  

Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

  

 

 

Denominationalism’s Attitude Toward Peter

The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists.  I would feel sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling sorry for the wrong party seeing as how he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere men, men without inspiration. 

It was not always the way it is today.  For at least a few hundred years after his sermon in Acts 2 he was honored by those who proclaimed faith in God and belief in Christ as the Son of God.  Today, however, men who claim Christianity pretty much just ignore his sermon that day on Pentecost approximately two thousand years ago for they do not like what he said and they no longer believe it. 

Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NKJV)  He used those keys on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 for the first time, did so by preaching God's plan of salvation for man.  I have never heard anyone argue against that point.  

However, few to no denominationalists believe that what he said that day is bound in heaven thus fight against both Jesus and Peter as well as the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke that day.  Wow!  Is there no one they will not take on? 

On that day in Acts 2 when those to whom Peter spoke "were cut to the heart (by Peter's sermon--DS), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do'" (Act 2:37 NKJV) Peter responded to them by saying, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Act 2:38 NKJV)  Their faith was evident by their asking the question. 

Denominationalists say Peter could not have meant what the words he spoke seem to be saying--baptism is for the remission of sins.  Hmmm!  I thought he was inspired; I thought the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles that day prior to the sermon.  If so, and I thought it was, I thought God was capable of saying what he meant to say.  Have I been wrong?  But then Jesus did say that "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mar 16:16 NKJV)  Did Jesus promise in this Mark passage that he who is not baptized will be saved?  Some seem to think so the way they talk.  The reality of Mark 16:16, according to their interpretation, is "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved."  

But they would object and say I am misrepresenting them.  They would say they never said that.  Aren't things that are equal to the same thing equal to each other?  If they say baptism does not save us, has no role in doing so, one can be saved without it, they are saying "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved" and they can object all day long if they desire but that is exactly where their doctrine leads them. 

Poor Peter never did get it right his whole life.  If only he could have received some counseling by today's Christians (?) who are in the know.  In Acts 10:48 he is again commanding people to be baptized at the house of Cornelius.  "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (NKJV)  The gall of the man, commanding a non-essential, but then if memory recalls correctly I believe that man was inspired was he not?  Maybe it is not Peter who has the problem.  

Sadly, many years later (approximately 30) Peter is still preaching error according to denominationalists for he goes so far as to say now for a second time that baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38 & 1 Peter 3:21).  He says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) 

I am in a minority but I think I will just go with Peter's misunderstanding and let the denominationalists go their own way.  If they are saving a seat for me this coming Sunday it will be free for someone else's use.  I am sure they are nice enough people and people who mean well but at my age I cannot afford to go along with the crowd.  I want to go with Peter.  I'll just take a chance that he knew what he was talking about and that God was able to use language plain and clear enough that a simpleton like me can understand.  I will take him at his word.

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