This is from one of our respected members that has not been active here for a while, but used to be very active.
Randy (aka Chickenman).
He is a published author and wrote the following:
Modern Church: Where Tradition Trumps Truth. Toss it, use it, or otherwise do what you like with it (including critique it, if needed).
Water baptism
Baptism is one of the most emotional doctrines that exists in the church today. There is no majority opinion on the subject. Some believe you have to be immersed under water to be saved, and they usually appeal to Acts 2:38 or maybe also to John’s baptism in the early part of the gospel accounts (to support immersing as opposed to sprinkling). Others believe that it is not required for salvation, but it is a symbol of one’s decision to follow Christ. And some would take this position so far as to say that if one is not baptized, then he was never actually saved. Ironically, they do not shy away from Acts 2:38. Often in the manner of a preemptive strike, many in that camp will go straight for the seemingly contradictory Acts 2:38 but will appeal to a manufactured Greek rendering of it for support, since the actual wording of the text itself hurts their position. The passage says:
The message to the intended audience appears clear enough: repentance and baptism are required for the remission of sins. But those whose doctrine is jeopardized by this passage say intelligent-sounding things like:
In other words, the commentator does not support the idea of baptism being a requirement for the remission of sins. So he attempts to convince others that the Greek text really says that baptism was not required at all, it was merely a visual representation of the individual’s repentance. My response to arguments like this is: If that revised Greek rendering is correct, then why have the Greek translators of every single Bible version translated it to read that baptism was indeed a requirement, along with repentance, for the audience’s remission of sins? Could not they have easily translated it differently? See the outcome of several different bible translation committees:
Even devotional paraphrases like The Message and The New Living Translation managed to keep it consistent:
Some believe water baptism is a required step of obedience before one can fully realize his potential in Christ. The phrase, “baptism is an outward sign of an inward change”, is commonly used. Supporting evidence here is more philosophical, noting that Jesus’ ministry began with His baptism. So a believer should follow Jesus’ example if he wants to be completely effective in ministry.
Some immerse completely. Others sprinkle. Some sprinkle babies. And very few others believe that water baptism has no place in the church today.
All cannot be right. Most, therefore, must be wrong.
Baptism was a very important component of the Law for Israel. Hebrew’s author, in referring to the duties of Israel’s priests, commented on “foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances” (Heb. 9:10). While washing was required to cleanse oneself and one’s clothes after touching a carcass (Lev. 11:25), from leprosy (Lev. 13 & 14), and after eating what has died naturally or what was torn by beasts (Lev. 17:15), the most recorded purpose of washing was for purification of priests before entering the tabernacle. That is the washing to which the author of Hebrews referred.
This act of cleansing was more than simply a removal of dirt. It was part of the purification process of the priesthood (Lev. 8). Even in the case of the man who ate “what has died naturally” (Lev. 17:15), the cleansing had much greater significance than simply washing the filth off his body. It was required to remove his guilt (v. 16). But aside from the requirement for priests to be consecrated through washing, and the few instances requiring a native or a sojourner to be washed according to the Law, it was not a general requirement for remission of sins in the Old Testament text.
But an interesting development occurred as Daniel’s prophetic period of 69 weeks approached its end. Just a few years before Pentecost and the beginning of the 70th week, John the Baptist came preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” And in conjunction with his message, he baptized the masses into the waters of the Jordan River. His baptism was one “of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Israelites from all over Judea went out to him and were baptized by him, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5).
What does John’s baptism have to do with the priestly washings? You should recall the following passage concerning God’s plan for Israel.
In the gospel accounts, God’s program was still on track and heading toward the long-awaited kingdom. Therefore, in preparation for the time of the prophesied 70th week, Israel was reminded of the coming kingdom and commanded to repent. For God would have them be an entire nation of priests through which the Gentile world would come to God. And consistent with the teachings of the Law, priests were required to be consecrated and cleansed through the washing of water referred to in Hebrews and translated in the gospels as…“baptism.” It should therefore be no surprise that Jesus Himself was baptized, for He too was an Israelite. Though He would be the Savior of the nation and world, He still upheld the requirement of the Law.
The idea of baptism in the gospel accounts being a priestly baptism is further supported by the fact that a dispute arose between some of John’s disciples and some of the other Jews about purification. When Jesus and His disciples went into the land of Judea, they began baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim. And the scriptures tell us:
John’s disciples questioned why anyone other than their Rabbi (John) would be administering the rite. And that they referred to it as purification showed that they understood its purpose as a cleansing ritual, just as it had been for the previous 1500 years.
This priestly purpose was why Jesus included baptism in His commission to His chosen apostles (Matt. 28:19). The nation would need to be washed for the remission of their sins in order to be included in the priesthood. Otherwise, they would be baptized not with water, but with judgment.
Peter, in keeping with his commission and consistent with the requirement for priesthood, preached water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). And as promised by Jesus, believers would be filled with the Spirit Who would empower them to perform miraculous works as a sign of the end being imminent . Philip baptized those who believed “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), and he baptized the Ethiopian who was on his way back to Egypt after worshipping in Jerusalem (Acts 8:27), both acts consistent with the kingdom commission. Peter, unaware of God’s change in His program (He only knew that God has now cleansed that which was formerly unclean. (Acts 10:9-16)) , required the house of Cornelius to be baptized AFTER the Holy Spirit fell on them (Acts 10:44-48)*. And Ananias, according to the knowledge he had under the New Covenant dispensation, had Paul baptized following his calling (Acts 22:16 cf. Acts 9:17-18).
There lies the answer to the debate. Water baptism was for chosen Israel. Nowhere is it demanded in the writings of Paul for the Body of Christ. Instead, we are baptized by the Spirit into Christ.
While Israel had several baptisms (priestly, touching a dead animal, remission of sins, etc.), Paul proclaims that there is…
So we should not insert the word “water” into such passages as:
For he tells us clearly that our one baptism is Spirit baptism into Christ. And being in Christ, therefore, we assume the attributes of Christ – His crucifixion (Rom. 6:3), His resurrection (Col. 2:12), His holiness and blamelessness (Eph. 1:4), and sonship (Eph. 1:5).
For those who reject this presentation of baptism, consideration should be taken of the fact that Jesus, in His “Great Commission” of Matthew 28:18-20, commanded that His followers go into the world and baptize all men everywhere (among other things). He sent them to baptize, just as God sent John the Baptist to baptize.
Ironically, however, Paul said he was not sent to baptize.
If Paul and the Body of Christ were and are under the “Great Commission” and were and are, therefore, sent to baptize others, how could Paul say he was not sent to do that? Would he not be rebelling against a God-given commission in saying such?
Though he was not sent to baptize, Paul apparently utilized water baptism on certain occasions (thanking God that he did not baptize more, I Cor. 1:14). Though Paul taught freedom from the Law (I Cor. 9:1), he also taught compromise on trivial matters (Rom. 14; I Cor. 8 and 9). He therefore agreed to ask Gentile believers who worshipped in cities where law-abiding Jews lived to uphold certain aspects of the Law (Acts 15:28-29) so as not to offend the Jews. And he willingly abided by the Law as a Jew in order to reach his countrymen (I Cor. 9:20). So it should be no surprise that he also baptized Gaius (a Corinthian Jew), Crispus (the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth), or anyone else in order to comply with their law and to avoid needlessly offending the other Jews (“…to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews…”).
Israel under the Old Covenant and New Covenant had water baptism as a requirement. Paul taught that we, however, are spiritually baptized into Christ. Understanding the distinction between the writings for Israel and the writings for the Body of Christ raises other thought-provoking questions , but it resolves the debate on water baptism in the church today.
*Peter preached that baptism would be required before one could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). This act of God dispensing the Spirit upon the house of Cornelius before Peter completed his message was indicative of His change of plans.
Randy (aka Chickenman).
He is a published author and wrote the following:
Modern Church: Where Tradition Trumps Truth. Toss it, use it, or otherwise do what you like with it (including critique it, if needed).
Water baptism
Baptism is one of the most emotional doctrines that exists in the church today. There is no majority opinion on the subject. Some believe you have to be immersed under water to be saved, and they usually appeal to Acts 2:38 or maybe also to John’s baptism in the early part of the gospel accounts (to support immersing as opposed to sprinkling). Others believe that it is not required for salvation, but it is a symbol of one’s decision to follow Christ. And some would take this position so far as to say that if one is not baptized, then he was never actually saved. Ironically, they do not shy away from Acts 2:38. Often in the manner of a preemptive strike, many in that camp will go straight for the seemingly contradictory Acts 2:38 but will appeal to a manufactured Greek rendering of it for support, since the actual wording of the text itself hurts their position. The passage says:
“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.” Acts 2:38
The message to the intended audience appears clear enough: repentance and baptism are required for the remission of sins. But those whose doctrine is jeopardized by this passage say intelligent-sounding things like:
“The verb translated ‘be baptized’ is in the indirect passive imperative of ‘Baptizmo’ which does not give it the same direct command implied in ‘repent.’…the preposition ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ in Greek is ‘eis’, ‘unto.’ It means ‘for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.’” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible (Chatanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1984), 1438.)
In other words, the commentator does not support the idea of baptism being a requirement for the remission of sins. So he attempts to convince others that the Greek text really says that baptism was not required at all, it was merely a visual representation of the individual’s repentance. My response to arguments like this is: If that revised Greek rendering is correct, then why have the Greek translators of every single Bible version translated it to read that baptism was indeed a requirement, along with repentance, for the audience’s remission of sins? Could not they have easily translated it differently? See the outcome of several different bible translation committees:
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NIV)
“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NAS)
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (KJV)
“Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Young’s Literal)
"Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Holman)
“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)
“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (NAS)
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (KJV)
“Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Young’s Literal)
"Repent," Peter said to them, "and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Holman)
“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)
Even devotional paraphrases like The Message and The New Living Translation managed to keep it consistent:
Peter said, "Change your life. Turn to God and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins are forgiven. (The Message)
Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The New Living Translation)
Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The New Living Translation)
Some believe water baptism is a required step of obedience before one can fully realize his potential in Christ. The phrase, “baptism is an outward sign of an inward change”, is commonly used. Supporting evidence here is more philosophical, noting that Jesus’ ministry began with His baptism. So a believer should follow Jesus’ example if he wants to be completely effective in ministry.
Some immerse completely. Others sprinkle. Some sprinkle babies. And very few others believe that water baptism has no place in the church today.
All cannot be right. Most, therefore, must be wrong.
Baptism was a very important component of the Law for Israel. Hebrew’s author, in referring to the duties of Israel’s priests, commented on “foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances” (Heb. 9:10). While washing was required to cleanse oneself and one’s clothes after touching a carcass (Lev. 11:25), from leprosy (Lev. 13 & 14), and after eating what has died naturally or what was torn by beasts (Lev. 17:15), the most recorded purpose of washing was for purification of priests before entering the tabernacle. That is the washing to which the author of Hebrews referred.
“And Aaron and his sons you shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and you shall wash them with water.” Ex. 29:4
“Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of meeting and wash them with water.” Ex. 40:12
“Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of meeting and wash them with water.” Ex. 40:12
And Moses said to the congregation, “This is what the LORD commanded to be done.” Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water. Lev. 8:5-6
“Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering. He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired. These are holy garments. Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on.” Lev. 16:3-4
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them ceremonially. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, and let them shave all their body, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Num. 8:5-7
“Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering. He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired. These are holy garments. Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on.” Lev. 16:3-4
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them ceremonially. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, and let them shave all their body, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Num. 8:5-7
This act of cleansing was more than simply a removal of dirt. It was part of the purification process of the priesthood (Lev. 8). Even in the case of the man who ate “what has died naturally” (Lev. 17:15), the cleansing had much greater significance than simply washing the filth off his body. It was required to remove his guilt (v. 16). But aside from the requirement for priests to be consecrated through washing, and the few instances requiring a native or a sojourner to be washed according to the Law, it was not a general requirement for remission of sins in the Old Testament text.
But an interesting development occurred as Daniel’s prophetic period of 69 weeks approached its end. Just a few years before Pentecost and the beginning of the 70th week, John the Baptist came preaching, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” And in conjunction with his message, he baptized the masses into the waters of the Jordan River. His baptism was one “of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Israelites from all over Judea went out to him and were baptized by him, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5).
What does John’s baptism have to do with the priestly washings? You should recall the following passage concerning God’s plan for Israel.
“’Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” Ex. 19:5-6
In the gospel accounts, God’s program was still on track and heading toward the long-awaited kingdom. Therefore, in preparation for the time of the prophesied 70th week, Israel was reminded of the coming kingdom and commanded to repent. For God would have them be an entire nation of priests through which the Gentile world would come to God. And consistent with the teachings of the Law, priests were required to be consecrated and cleansed through the washing of water referred to in Hebrews and translated in the gospels as…“baptism.” It should therefore be no surprise that Jesus Himself was baptized, for He too was an Israelite. Though He would be the Savior of the nation and world, He still upheld the requirement of the Law.
The idea of baptism in the gospel accounts being a priestly baptism is further supported by the fact that a dispute arose between some of John’s disciples and some of the other Jews about purification. When Jesus and His disciples went into the land of Judea, they began baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim. And the scriptures tell us:
Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. John 3:25
John’s disciples questioned why anyone other than their Rabbi (John) would be administering the rite. And that they referred to it as purification showed that they understood its purpose as a cleansing ritual, just as it had been for the previous 1500 years.
This priestly purpose was why Jesus included baptism in His commission to His chosen apostles (Matt. 28:19). The nation would need to be washed for the remission of their sins in order to be included in the priesthood. Otherwise, they would be baptized not with water, but with judgment.
“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. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matt. 3:11-12
“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 13:41-42
“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 13:41-42
Peter, in keeping with his commission and consistent with the requirement for priesthood, preached water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). And as promised by Jesus, believers would be filled with the Spirit Who would empower them to perform miraculous works as a sign of the end being imminent . Philip baptized those who believed “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), and he baptized the Ethiopian who was on his way back to Egypt after worshipping in Jerusalem (Acts 8:27), both acts consistent with the kingdom commission. Peter, unaware of God’s change in His program (He only knew that God has now cleansed that which was formerly unclean. (Acts 10:9-16)) , required the house of Cornelius to be baptized AFTER the Holy Spirit fell on them (Acts 10:44-48)*. And Ananias, according to the knowledge he had under the New Covenant dispensation, had Paul baptized following his calling (Acts 22:16 cf. Acts 9:17-18).
There lies the answer to the debate. Water baptism was for chosen Israel. Nowhere is it demanded in the writings of Paul for the Body of Christ. Instead, we are baptized by the Spirit into Christ.
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” I Cor. 12:13
While Israel had several baptisms (priestly, touching a dead animal, remission of sins, etc.), Paul proclaims that there is…
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism” Eph. 4:5
So we should not insert the word “water” into such passages as:
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” Rom. 6:3
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27
“…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.” Col. 2:12
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27
“…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.” Col. 2:12
For he tells us clearly that our one baptism is Spirit baptism into Christ. And being in Christ, therefore, we assume the attributes of Christ – His crucifixion (Rom. 6:3), His resurrection (Col. 2:12), His holiness and blamelessness (Eph. 1:4), and sonship (Eph. 1:5).
For those who reject this presentation of baptism, consideration should be taken of the fact that Jesus, in His “Great Commission” of Matthew 28:18-20, commanded that His followers go into the world and baptize all men everywhere (among other things). He sent them to baptize, just as God sent John the Baptist to baptize.
“I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me…” John 1:33
Ironically, however, Paul said he was not sent to baptize.
“For Christ did not send me to baptize…” I Cor. 1:17a
If Paul and the Body of Christ were and are under the “Great Commission” and were and are, therefore, sent to baptize others, how could Paul say he was not sent to do that? Would he not be rebelling against a God-given commission in saying such?
Though he was not sent to baptize, Paul apparently utilized water baptism on certain occasions (thanking God that he did not baptize more, I Cor. 1:14). Though Paul taught freedom from the Law (I Cor. 9:1), he also taught compromise on trivial matters (Rom. 14; I Cor. 8 and 9). He therefore agreed to ask Gentile believers who worshipped in cities where law-abiding Jews lived to uphold certain aspects of the Law (Acts 15:28-29) so as not to offend the Jews. And he willingly abided by the Law as a Jew in order to reach his countrymen (I Cor. 9:20). So it should be no surprise that he also baptized Gaius (a Corinthian Jew), Crispus (the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth), or anyone else in order to comply with their law and to avoid needlessly offending the other Jews (“…to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews…”).
Israel under the Old Covenant and New Covenant had water baptism as a requirement. Paul taught that we, however, are spiritually baptized into Christ. Understanding the distinction between the writings for Israel and the writings for the Body of Christ raises other thought-provoking questions , but it resolves the debate on water baptism in the church today.
*Peter preached that baptism would be required before one could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). This act of God dispensing the Spirit upon the house of Cornelius before Peter completed his message was indicative of His change of plans.
