SYLLABUS FOR THE MEANING OF BAPTISM SEMINAR DR. JACK COTTRELL -- 2016

I. RATIONALE: Why is it important for Christians to have a clear and complete understanding of Christian baptism? A. Because baptism is a crucial and unique step in the process of becoming a Christian (i.e., it is directly related to one’s salvation). 1. If your own salvation is important to you, then it is very important that you understand what happened to you when you were baptized. 2. If you are concerned about the salvation of others, and if you want to help them come to an understanding of how to be saved, then you must know how baptism fits into the salvation scenario.

B. Because baptism is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Christian faith. 1. A large portion of the Christian world rejects the Biblical teaching about the connection between baptism and salvation. This is both ironic and tragic, given baptism’s obvious importance. 2. It is thus crucial that we understand not only the true New Testament teaching about baptism, but also the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1) that are so prevalent about this subject. 3. We must be able not only to explain the true Biblical view of baptism, but also to show how it differs from most of the views in Christendom today (Titus 1:9).

II. OBJECTIVES: After this seminar, you should – A. Have a clear understanding of what the New Testament teaches about baptism, especially with regard to its meaning.

B. Understand why so much of Christendom has rejected this teaching.

C. Have a deeper appreciation for your own experience of Christian baptism. D. Be able to explain the Biblical teaching on baptism, to answer objections thereto, and to refute false interpretations.

PART ONE: FIRST PRINCIPLES1

PRINCIPLE #1 – A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF BAPTISM IS IMPORTANT.

1 Here we will lay the foundation for a detailed look at the Bible’s specific teachings about baptism. 1

A. All doctrine is important. (Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20) B. The doctrine of salvation is especially important. C. In this seminar, we are focusing on how baptism is relation to salvation. So it is important!

PRINCIPLE #2 – ALL DOCTRINE, INCLUDING BAPTISM, IS BASED ON SCRIPTURE FIRST, NOT EXPERIENCE. A. Many try to base their doctrine (especially of salvation) on experience (e.g., Gal. 5:22-23). B. But experience can be ambiguous as to origin and meaning. Thus it cannot be a premise for doctrinal conclusions. C. See Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 13:23-27; 2 Peter 1:16-21; Luke 16:27-31.

PRINCIPLE #3 – THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM CANNOT BE BASED ON NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES A. It cannot be based on non-Biblical baptisms (e.g., Essene baptism, Jewish proselyte baptism). B. Our understanding of baptism cannot be based on the Latin word sacramentum. 1. In non-Christian Latin culture the word often meant “an oath, a pledge.” 2. Zwingli applied this meaning to baptism, which has influenced modern Protestantism.

PRINCIPLE #4 – THERE ARE THREE MAIN ISSUES REGARDING BAPTISM. A. SUBJECTS: adults or infants? B. FORM (or ACTION): immersion or sprinkling? C. MEANING (or DESIGN): for salvation or not? Our seminar focuses on this last one.

PRINCIPLE #5 – CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BEGAN ON PENTECOST (ACTS 2). WE CANNOT BASE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF BAPTISM ON ANY PRE-PENTECOSTAL BIBLICAL PRACTICES. A. Baptism does not get its meaning from OT circumcision. (See #9 below.) B. Christian baptism does not get its meaning from John’s baptism. 1. Those baptized by John were required to receive Christian baptism. (Acts 2:38-39; 19:1-7) 2. The purpose of John’s baptism was to prepare Israel for the immediate coming of Christ. C. Christian baptism does not get its meaning from the baptism of Jesus (See later). D. All of this shows that the situation of “the thief on the cross” proves nothing about baptism.

PRINCIPLE #6 – THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM FOR CHRISTIANS (EPH. 4:5). A. The NT does refer to TWO baptisms: in Spirit; in water. How can we reconcile this with Eph. 4:5? 1. Extreme dispensationalism (“mid-Acts dispensationalism”) says the New Covenant began with Paul; only Spirit baptism is for the church, and that is the “one baptism.” 2. Most Evangelicals say Spirit baptism (as part of salvation) comes as soon as faith does; water baptism comes later. The “one baptism” refers only to the former—the important one. 3. Many Restorationists say Spirit baptism refers only to Pentecost and Cornelius (Acts 2 & 10). The only baptism (the “one baptism”) that applies to the church is water baptism. B. Contrary to all the above, the one baptism given to every Christian is a combination of Spirit baptism and water baptism. The one baptism has TWO aspects that are simultaneous. 1. Parallels: the one Lord has two natures—divine, human; the one faith has two aspects— assent, trust; Jesus’ one death had two parts—outward (crucifixion), inward (propitiation). 2. Whenever the NT refers to Christian baptism, it refers to the one event of water & Spirit. 3. From J. Cottrell, Power from on High, pp. 330-331 – “We must stop dividing the one baptism into two events; it is one event with two distinct aspects. Also, we must stop dividing the 2

biblical texts about baptism into two separate lists, i.e., one with references to water baptism and the other with references to Spirit baptism. There is only one Christian baptism. Whenever baptism is mentioned in the NT in the context of the church, it is WATER baptism; and is also SPIRIT baptism.”

PRINCIPLE #7 – BAPTISM IS THE TIME WHEN GOD GIVES THE DOUBLE CURE OF SALVATION. A. The “double cure” includes forgiveness of our legal guilt, and regeneration of our sinful nature. B. Baptism is the time or occasion when both are received. See Acts 2:38; Col. 2:12. C. This view was taught consistently by Christendom for its first 1,500 years.

PRINCIPLE #8 – BAPTISM IS FUNDAMENTALLY A WORK OF GOD, NOT A WORK OF MAN. A. Only “the working of God” causes the double cure – in baptism (Col. 2:12). B. In baptism the saving activity is not caused by the water, by the act, or by the baptizer. C. This means there is no such thing as “baptismal regeneration,” in that term’s historical sense.

PRINCIPLE #9 – BAPTISM IN THE NT IS NOT THE SAME AS CIRCUMCISION IN THE OT. A. That baptism takes the place of circumcision is a commonly-held false idea, part of the false system called “covenant theology” as originated by Huldreich Zwingli. 1. This view says the church is under the covenant God made with Abraham, and thus must have a sign equivalent to the sign of circumcision instituted in Gen. 17:9-14. Baptism is this sign. 2. But Acts 13:32-33 says that that covenant was fulfilled by Christ; we are under a new covenant. B. But what about Col. 2:11? Doesn’t this relate circumcision to baptism in v. 12? 1. The OT speaks of two different circumcisions: physical (the covenant sign) and spiritual (inward circumcision of the heart) – e.g., Ezek. 44:7, 9; Jer. 4:4; Deut. 30:6. 2. The only connection between the two was that the former was an illustration of the latter. 3. Col. 2:11 is obviously relating baptism only to the spiritual circumcision (regeneration, new birth).

PRINCIPLE #10 – BAPTISM IS FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, BUT NOT FOR PAST SINS ONLY. A. In the second century A.D. the idea arose that in baptism only past sins are forgiven, with no forgiveness available for post-baptismal sins. E.g., Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” ¶61: We are baptized so that we “may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.” See also “Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 4:3.” B. Around A.D. 203 Tertullian confirmed this but said God gives one more opportunity after baptism (“On Repentance,” ¶7, 9). He says it is true that “the gate of forgiveness has been shut and fastened up with the bar of baptism,” but God “has permitted it to still to stand somewhat open” for ONE MORE repentance after baptism. But the second one has to be demonstrated with extreme public humiliation. C. The Catholic Church expanded this into the sacrament of penance: regular opportunities to receive forgiveness for post-baptismal sins. D. This idea was incorporated into the Restoration Movement early, e.g., Alexander Campbell (see his Christian Baptism [Gospel Advocate, 1951], pp. 202-3, 217-218). It is found almost everywhere among us today, along with the idea that post-baptismal sins are forgiven according to 1 John 1:9. E. This is false. It misunderstands what it means to be forgiven (justified) by faith. When we are baptized, we are baptized into an ongoing relationship with Christ that is maintained by ongoing faith. We live as forgiven persons. In baptism we receive not just forgiveness of sins, but the state of forgiven-ness. F. Why is this false idea so serious? It robs Christians of the blessing of assurance of salvation. 3

1. When combined with a false understanding of 1 John 1:9, it causes us to think of ourselves as going round-and-round through a revolving door: baptism / saved / commit a sin / lost again / confess sin and pray / saved again / sin again / confess & pray again / saved again / sin again / etc. 2. This causes one to live in fear of dying after committing a sin and before being able to confess it and pray for forgiveness. Thus assurance is compromised. 3. A proper understanding of 1 John 1:8-10 shows that John is talking not about confession of individual sins as condition for forgiveness of that sin, but about ongoing confession THAT we are sinners as an expression of the ongoing spirit of repentance that resides in the Christian’s heart. G. We can apply Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) to 1 John 1:8-10, thus: 1. The Pharisee is a perfect example of the attitude in 1 John 1:8, 10 – he admitted no sins! 2. The tax collector –what specific sins did he confess? NONE – just THAT he was a sinner, 1 John 1:9!

PRINCIPLE #11 – BAPTISM DOES NOT BELONG TO A GENERAL CATEGORY OF PRACTICES ALONG WITH THE LORD’S SUPPER, SHARING A COMMON MEANING. A. Christendom in general has developed the concept of a category called SACRAMENTS. B. The Restoration Movement questions the term (preferring “Christian Ordinances”), but usually accepts the idea that there is such a category shared by baptism and the Lord’s Supper. C. I see no Biblical basis for such a category, and NO NEED to find a common meaning shared by these two practices. They are two separate acts, instituted for different purposes. 1. Baptism is related to receiving salvation, to becoming saved and justified. 2. The Lord’s Supper is related to sanctification, helping us maintain our faith.

PART TWO: BAPTISM AND JESUS

I. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, but His baptism was NOT a CHRISTIAN baptism, because John’s baptism was not Christian baptism and was not equivalent to it.

A. James Conner, in “You Were Baptized! What Does That Mean?” (Christian Standard, 10/28/79, p. 4, said, “So how can we determine just what our baptism does mean? . . . The best place to find such answers is with the baptism of Jesus by John. . . . What then was unique about Christian baptism as Jesus himself observed and taught it, and as the church adopted it? . . . Jesus’ baptism is the logical place to go for an explanation of Christian baptism.”

B. This is horrible teaching. John’s baptism was the same as Christian baptism in form (immersion) but not in meaning. 1. One might say – but wasn’t John’s baptism for remission of sins? That’s debatable, but irrelevant. There is a lot more to Christian baptism than remission of sins. a. Those baptized by John did not enter into a union with Jesus (“into Christ”). b. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; they were not “born again.” c. They were not baptized into the church, the body of Christ (it didn’t exist!). d. They were not baptized into a relationship with the Trinity as such. 2. John’s baptism was to prepare the Jewish people to be ready for the Messiah: Mk. 1:7-8. 3. After Pentecost those baptized by John had to be baptized again: Acts 2:38; 18:24 – 19:7.

4

C. So what WAS the purpose of JESUS’ baptism? 1. A common assumption: he did it just to set an example for everyone else. “You should be baptized because Jesus was!” 2. Not so! Most things Jesus did, including his baptism, were UNIQUE to Jesus. He did not come to set an example for us; he came to do things that ONLY HE could do. (John. 4:34; Heb. 10:5-7) 3. This is what he was doing in his baptism: putting himself in the place of sinners as a symbolic foreshadowing of the cross—his real baptism. (Luke 12:50; Mark 10:35-38)

D. His baptism by John was an ordination service; it marked the beginning of his unique ministry.

II. We have no record of Jesus COMMANDING anyone to be baptized. A. Often we hear: “You should be baptized because Jesus commanded you to.” Technically, no.

B. Jesus did say a few things about the coming Christian baptism (John 3:5), but gave no such command. C. But what about Matthew 28:19-20? True, there is a command here—but the command is to Jesus’ disciples to go and baptize others!

III. Jesus’ Teaching About Baptism in John 3:1-5.

A. Whatever “born of water” means, it is essential for entering the kingdom of God (the church).

B. Those who deny that water baptism is a salvation event seek other meanings for “water.” E.g.: 1. Water = literal liquid: amniotic fluid or semen. I.e., “born of water” = physical birth. a. But in the NT, physical birth = “born of flesh,” as in v. 6. See Jn. 1:13; Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:23, 29. b. So this view would have Jesus saying: “Unless a man is born physically, he cannot be saved”! This is pointless! c. Greek: one preposition (ek) with two objects means these are not two separate events. See Murray Harris, Prepositions and Theology, Zondervan, 2012, pp. 110-111. 2. Water = symbolic of the Holy Spirit. This is true in John 4:10ff. and John 7:37-39, where Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “living water.” a. But the contexts of John 4 & 7 make it CLEAR that “water” is symbolic. Not so, here. b. What would Nicodemus think of when Jesus connected water and the Kingdom? John’s baptism in water. See John’s message, Matthew 3:2.

C. But – how could Jesus be talking about CHRISTIAN baptism – since it did not even exist in Nicodemus’ time? Would this have made any sense to Nicodemus? 1. But remember: nothing else in John 3:5 existed then either! Both the Kingdom and the experience of being born of the Spirit did not exist until Pentecost. 2. Jesus spoke of other future things without explaining them: John 2:19-22; 7:37-39.

D. Are those “born of water” in Christian baptism already spiritually alive prior to baptism? 1. A common analogy: in physical birth, life exists before birth via begetting with “seed.” a. Alexander Campbell lays the groundwork for this idea in explaining regeneration: “The Spirit of God is the begetter, the gospel is the seed; and, being thus begotten and 5

quickened [made alive], we are born of the water. A child is alive before it is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life. Just so in the metaphorical birth. Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the Word, and born of the water” (Christian System, 1835 [Standard Publishing, n.d.] p. 173). “Begetting and quickening necessarily precede being born” (179). “Birth itself is not for procuring, but for enjoying, the life possessed before birth” (233). b. So when the seed of the Word produces faith in the sinner’s heart (the begetting), spiritual life begins, prior to baptism (the birth). Unimmersed believers thus are “brothers yet unborn.” 2. I reject this view as human speculation completely unwarranted by the Bible. a. It is an unwarranted extension of the birth metaphor. When dealing with figures of speech, we must resist the temptation to go beyond the point being made in the text. The point here is the one event of the beginning of new life. b. More specifically, this ignores other metaphors for regeneration that do not allow a multiple-step process for the beginning of new life, especially the metaphor of resurrection. See Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12. One is raised immediately from death to life. c. Most seriously, this view separates the making-alive work of the Spirit from the point where the Bible says it happens: in baptism. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5)

IV. Jesus’ Teaching About Baptism in Matthew 28:19-20.

A. Jesus’ commission as stated here has four distinct actions (verb forms): 1. The main verb is the imperative (command), “Make disciples.” 2. The verb translated “Go” is an aorist participle, literally – “Having gone.” (The action of an aorist participle usually precedes the action of the main verb.) 3. Most important here are the last two verbs, which are present participles that explain HOW we make disciples: (a) by “baptizing” them, and then (b) by “teaching” them. (The action of a present participle usually is contemporaneous with the action of the main verb.)

B. Note: The fact that Jesus SEPARATES baptism from the general list of commands is important! 1. Most Protestants see baptism as just the first command a Christian should obey, and thus not qualitatively different from any other act of Christian obedience. 2. Here Jesus puts baptism in a different category: What the Apostle Paul calls obedience to the gospel, not obedience to our law code. (See below, “Questions and Objections,” #3.)

C. Jesus connects baptism with the name of the TRINITY. 1. The exact phrase is important: “Baptizing them “INTO the name of” (eis to onoma). 2. Eis to onoma means we are baptized into a relationship with all three persons of the Trinity. 3. What kind of relationship? Property ownership! We belong to the Father, Son, & Spirit (We learn this from the way the Greeks used this phrase, “eis to onoma,” in commerce and business circles. See “bapto,” Theological Dictionary of the NT, I:539; disputed in “onoma,” ibid, 5:275).

D. The connection with the Trinity shows why God has added a new condition for salvation. 1. There ARE conditions for receiving salvation. In the OT era there were faith (Gen. 15:6; Ps. 78:21-22; Hab. 2:4), repentance (Ezek. 14:6; 18:30), and confession (Joel 2:32; Zech. 13:9). But in this NT era, the new condition of baptism has been added. WHY? 2. The answer has to do with the new revelation of God as TRINITY. 6

a. There was no need to explain the Trinity in the OT era, because the distinctions among the three persons do not need to be known until the works of redemption take place. b. This (relatively) new revelation of God is what requires changes in the conditions. 3. How does the knowledge of the Trinitarian nature of salvation change the conditions? a. Confession is no longer just of “Yahweh” (Joel 2:32), but specifically of JESUS (Rom. 10:9-13; Acts 22:16; compare Acts 2:21 & 2:36). b. Repentance includes repentance for rejecting Jesus (Acts 2:22-38). c. Especially, saving faith itself has changed. In OT times it was faith in Yahweh as the one true God. But now in the church age it must include specific faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 20:31; Rom. 3:25; 10:9-10). 4. The faith (etc.) that was sufficient before Pentecost is no longer acceptable. The Jews who refused to revise (adjust, broaden, deepen) their faith became lost (Rom. 11:20). 5. All the newness of the new salvation conditions has been summed up and objectively embodied in a new capstone condition: BAPTISM! Submission to immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit imbeds the consciousness of God as Trinity firmly within our minds. a. We are immersed in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) – an act that in itself highlights the saving works of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (as well as our own). b. The bestowal of the one brand new element in personal salvation happens in immersion: i.e., the giving of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

E. In summary, baptism as a new condition for salvation is God’s way of requiring everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, to lift our faith up to a new level, the level of the Trinitarian dimension of God’s own nature and the Trinitarian nature of the work of salvation itself. Every aspect of Christian baptism calls attention to the Trinity as a fundamental doctrine of true faith and worship. This is why we baptize, as Jesus commanded, into the one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

PART THREE – BAPTISM IN ACTS

I. THE NEW COVENANT GENESIS: PENTECOST (Acts 2:37-39). A. The historical setting: the Feast of Pentecost, 50 days after Passover. Thousands of Jews are present—the cream of the crop, with many no doubt having been baptized by John. B. The main event on Pentecost was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 1. The first outpouring was the miracle-working presence of the Spirit, Acts 2:1-4. a. This was not a new kind of Spirit-presence (see Numbers 11); as such it was not for salvation. b. As with any miracle, its main purpose was evidential. See Acts 2:7, 12. 2. This was just preparation for the MAIN outpouring: the brand new salvation-presence of the Spirit, the indwelling promised in Acts 2:38-39. This is the NEW thing. 3. The latter, NOT the former, is the baptism with the Spirit promised by John (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8) and by Jesus (Acts 1:5).

C. Peter offered TWO specific blessings to those who would respond to his message—the same “double cure” we receive today (as discussed under part one above, “First Principles,” #7). 1. First: forgiveness (remission) of sins, elsewhere called justification. 7

a. Justification is a legal declaration by a judge in a court of law: “No penalty for you!” b. It is an objective event, occurring outside the sinner, in the mind of God. c. Forgiveness was not a new blessing; it was being given throughout the OT. 2. Second: the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:19). a. This indwelling is for salvation purposes, initially bringing regeneration or the new birth. b. The Spirit’s continuing indwelling is to empower us to live a holy life (sanctification). c. This is the NEW thing given on Pentecost. (Miracle-working power was not new.)

D. According to Peter’s teaching (2:38), how are these two blessings received? 1. One must REPENT. This is an attitude of the heart, especially the hatred of sin. 2. One must BE BAPTIZED. As explained in part two above, this is a NEW condition. a. Baptism’s Trinitarian connections (with Christ and the Spirit) are made explicit. b. This is clearly WATER baptism, since it is something sinners are commanded to do. But it is connected with the coming of the Spirit into the individual, and is also SPIRIT baptism.

E. What is the specific connection between baptism and salvation in Acts 2:38? 1. Peter commands us to be baptized FOR (eis) the forgiveness of sins. What does eis mean? a. Its basic meaning is movement toward or into something, physically or conceptually. In the latter case it signifies purpose or effect: “for the purpose of, so that, in order to.” b. So in 2:38 Peter’s point is this: Be baptized for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins. As the original (1973, 1978) NIV translated, “so that your sins may be forgiven.” 2. Most Protestants try to give Peter’s command some other meaning, e.g. – a. The baptism was not water baptism; there was not enough water near the temple for this. b. Eis means “because of” (something in the past), not “for the purpose of” (something to come.) c. In “forgiveness of YOUR sins” the “your” is plural. But the only plural verb is “repent”; let each one “be baptized” is singular so it must not be connected with forgiveness of sins. 3. None of these attempts to deny the salvation purpose of baptism “holds water.” a. There were several pools in Jerusalem. The Serpent’s Pool, about a half mile from the temple area, was about three acres in dimension. b. Everything about vv. 37-38 points to the future, not the past. The primary meaning of eis is “for the purpose of bringing about.” See the parallel (exact same phrase) with Matt. 26:28. c. This ignores the fact that the subject of “be baptized” is “each one OF YOU [plural you].”

F. In his commentary on Acts the Lutheran commentator R.C.H. Lenski says that the preposition eis, “connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has yet been able to separate the two (See The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles 1-14 [Augsburg Fortress, 1934], pp.107-108).”

II. THE SAMARITAN CHRISTIANS (Acts 8:4-24). A. Philip the evangelist preached and baptized in Samaria (Acts 8:5, 12), but the Apostles Peter and John had to come and lay hands on the converts so they could receive the Spirit (8:14-17). B. Critics say this shows the Holy Spirit was not here given in baptism; so salvation is not tied to baptism. C. What is ignored by these critics is that the Spirit is given in two ways for two different purposes. 1. He comes on people for miracle-working purposes, via laying on of apostles’ hands (cf. 19:6). 2. He comes on sinners for salvation purposes, via baptism. 8

D. The point here is that the Samaritan Christians had received the indwelling of the Spirit in baptism (see Acts 5:32), but no one could receive miracle-working powers until the apostles came and laid hands on them. (How do we know that the latter event brought miraculous results? Simon’s reaction, v. 18.) III. PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH (Acts 8:25-40). This is important because it shows that “preaching Jesus” in an evangelistic situation includes preaching baptism as something the sinner must do ASAP.

IV. FIRST GENTILE BAPTISMS: CORNELIUS & HIS HOUSEHOLD (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-17).

A. The historical situation is that here the gospel was first preached to GENTILES. This is something the Jewish Christians, including the Apostles, had been reluctant to do.

B. But the Cornelius episode was a Gentile “Pentecost” (10:44-46). 1. First the Spirit comes and produces miracles, just as He did in Acts 2:1ff. This was to demonstrate to the doubting Jewish witnesses that God wanted these Gentiles to be saved. Peter later equated this with Pentecost (11:15). 2. This leads Peter to conclude (10:47) that God wants these Gentiles to be baptized & saved.

C. How may we explain the fact that the Spirit came upon these Gentiles BEFORE baptism? 1. Critics say this proves there is no connection between baptism and the giving of the Spirit. 2. First response: this was not a NORMAL evangelistic scene. The tongue-producing outpouring of the Spirit was not for salvation, but for evidence that God wanted Gentiles to be saved. It was not done for Cornelius’ sake, but for the sake of Jewish doubters. 3. The main response: remember that the Spirit was bestowed in TWO different ways, for TWO different purposes in the apostolic era: for miracles, and for salvation. a. The outpouring in 10:44 was, like Acts 2:1-13, for evidential, miracle-working purposes. b. The baptism with water in 10:47-48 was their salvation event where, according to the pattern already established (2:38; 5:32) we can assume the indwelling of the Spirit occurred.

V. THE BAPTISM OF SAUL OF TARSUS, i.e., PAUL THE APOSTLE (Acts 22:16). (Paul’s conversion is recorded in three places in Acts: 9:1-19; 22:6-16; 26:9-18.)

A. Historical circumstances 1. Saul of Tarsus was a devout but anti-Christian Jew. The risen Christ appeared to him, brought him under deep conviction, blinded him, and told him to go to Damascus and wait. 2. After he waited, fasting and praying for three days, God sent Ananias to preach to him. a. First, Ananias laid his hands of Saul in order to restore his sight (9:17-18; 22:13). b. Then he tells Saul that God has chosen him for great service (22:13-15). c. Finally he tells Saul in no uncertain terms to get up and get baptized (9:17-18; 22:16).

B. The crucial thing is how Ananias describes the baptismal event. 1. There is no evidence in the narratives that Saul had become saved before this. 2. Ananias’ language clearly tells him how to receive salvation, the “washing away of sins.” This language is the same as forgiveness of sins. See Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22. C. This passage (22:16) clearly connects baptism with this “washing away” of sins, i.e., salvation. 1. The verse has four verb forms. 9

a. The two main verbs are commands: “get yourself baptized” (middle voice) and “wash away your sins.” b. The other verbs are aorist participles, indicating actions that precede the actions of the main verbs: “having arisen” and “having called on His name.” Grammatically the verse says, “Having arisen, and having called on His name, get yourself baptized and wash away your sins.” 2. The main verbs are things Saul had to do. Note the order: FIRST, get yourself baptized. SECOND, wash away your sins. (The Protestant world usually switches the order of these events: first, get your sins washed away by believing; second, be baptized. Wrong!). 3. Note the significance of the reference to “having called on his name.” a. This comes from Joel 2:32, where calling on the name of Yahweh is done for salvation. In the NT (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13) it is calling on Jesus for salvation. Here this prayer calls upon the Lord to do what he has promised to do in Christian baptism. b. This is the true Biblical “sinner’s prayer” – “O Lord Jesus, as I submit to your gospel command to be baptized, I call upon you to do what you have promised as I meet you there. I humbly ask you to forgive my sins by applying the atoning power of the blood you poured out for me, and to give me the blessed gift of your Holy Spirit for the renewing of my spirit.”

PART FOUR: BAPTISM IN THE APOSTOLIC WRITINGS

I. ROMANS 6:1-5.

A. In Romans 1 – 5 Paul explains the BEST thing that has ever happened to us Christians: We are justified (forgiven) by faith in the work of Jesus and thus have assurance that we are saved. B. This is wonderful, but it raises a potential problem: can one use this as an excuse for sin (6:1)? C. How does Paul handle this problem? By explaining in Romans 6 the SECOND BEST thing that has ever happened to us, i.e., the second part of the double cure—regeneration. 1. When we were saved, we were not only forgiven; God also worked a change in our nature, a change that makes it possible for us to live a holy life. 2. Romans 6 describes this as a death and resurrection of our souls, giving us new spiritual life. 3. What is the purpose of this? We are now ABLE to stop sinning! See Rom. 6:6; Eph. 2:10. 4. So why should we even contemplate giving in to that old dead sinful self? That would be like trying to ride a broken-down old bicycle everywhere, when someone has given you a brand new Cadillac! Or it would be like a butterfly still trying to live like a caterpillar.

D. Wow! Regeneration! What an important event! And Romans 6 tells us exactly WHEN it happens! 1. Many ignore Paul’s clear teaching here (e.g., they say we died with Christ when he was on the cross, or they say we died and rose with Him at the moment we believed and repented). 2. But what does Paul actually say here? This marvelous change happens IN BAPTISM! He does not say we believed into Christ’s death, or repented into His death; we were BAPTIZED into it! 3. Couldn’t this just be “an outward sign of an inward grace”? Yes—but it an outward sign of a simultaneous inward working of grace, not a prior one!

E. What is the significance of baptism, in light of what Paul says here? 10

1. The greatest (combined) historical event of all time is the death and resurrection of Jesus. The SECOND greatest historical event of all time: YOUR BAPTISM! 2. Paul’s point here is this: your baptism is your first line of defense against sin! When tempted to sin, we are not told to remember when we first believed and repented! We are not told to remember when we bowed our heads and received Jesus into our hearts. NO! We are told in no uncertain terms to remember our baptism!

II. 1 CORINTHIANS 1:10-17.

A. Critics think this text diminishes the importance of baptism (see vv. 14, 17). Wrong! Why? 1. They ignore the REASON why Paul said these things, i.e., v. 15. He did not want to be the cause of division in the church. 2. This wrong idea diminishes the importance of the Great Commission’s emphasis on baptism. Paul’s converts were always baptized, even if he himself did not do it. 3. This false view is inconsistent with Paul’s strong teachings about baptism throughout his letters.

B. This text actually elevates baptism to a level of great importance. Baptism is worthy of being laid side by side with the cross in Paul’s argument (see v. 13).

III. 1 CORINTHIANS 12:12-13.

A. The terminology of “baptized in [ev]” the Spirit is the same as Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; and (almost) 1 Cor. 6:11—which says “washed in.”

B. The term is appropriate but incidental, being suggested by John’s baptizing work. It is here equivalent to “drinking” the Spirit (reflecting John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39). Thus we should not try to make too much out of the term as such.

C. “Baptism in the Spirit” is variously interpreted. Here are three WRONG views: 1. General Evangelical: it is the salvation event (regeneration) given as soon as one believes. 2. Wesleyan groups: it is a “second work of grace” giving full sanctification (in Methodist and holiness groups) OR miraculous powers such as tongues (in Pentecostal and Charismatic groups). 3. A widespread Restoration Movement view is that it refers only to the twice-occurring gift of tongues for Pentecost & Cornelius.

D. So what IS “baptism in the Holy Spirit”? It is just another term for the gift of the indwelling Spirit as given to ALL converts, for SALVATION purposes, as part of the ONE BAPTISM.

E. When a Christian looks back at his conversion, he or she does not have to distinguish two different acts called “baptism.” There is only this one baptism. At the single moment when our bodies were immersed in water, our spirits were immersed in the Holy Spirit.

F. In this one baptism we become a part of the body of Christ, which is the worldwide “invisible” church, the body of the saved. It does not necessarily unite us with a local church.

IV. COLOSSIANS 2:11-13. This is probably the most important text on the meaning of baptism.

11

A. We are BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM (v. 12).

1. The main point of this “burial” is not being immersed into water, but being buried into Christ’s death, in the same sense as Romans 6:1-6. Here, the double cure happens: a. Being buried with Christ, we come into contact with his forgiving death. b. We are buried into our own spiritual death, necessary for regeneration. 2. What is happening here is also called “a circumcision made without hands” (v. 11). a. This is actually the main verb: “you were circumcised” (v. 11), as explained by v. 12. b. What kind of circumcision? Spiritual, “made without hands” (see Rom. 2:28-29). 3. This burial and spiritual circumcision are specifically said to occur IN BAPTISM (v. 12). a. In v. 12 “having been buried with Him in baptism” is an aorist participle, naming action that precedes the main verb (“you were circumcised,” v. 11). The baptism triggers the other acts being described here—which take place “in baptism.” b. God’s saving activity takes place IN BAPTISM. Baptism is the TIME of salvation.

B. We are RAISED UP WITH HIM IN BAPTISM (vv. 12, 13). A literal resurrection of the dead occurs “in baptism.” The sinner’s dead soul is infused with new life.

C. The relation between baptism and faith. 1. Many reject baptism as a salvation event because they have concluded that FAITH is the ONLY CONDITION for receiving salvation. They are confusing “means” and “condition.” There can be many conditions for something to happen, where only one of them is the means. 2. Paul clearly connects both faith and baptism with salvation, but not in the same way. a. Salvation comes THROUGH (dia) faith—faith is the only MEANS of being saved. b. But salvation comes IN (en) baptism—as the time or occasion when one is saved. 3. The fact that baptism is a salvation event ONLY if faith is present rules out several things: a. It rules out baptismal regeneration, since the regeneration does not occur without faith. b. It rules out infant baptism, since faith is seen here as a necessary prerequisite of baptism. c. It rules out salvation by works, with faith in God’s works being the key (Rom. 3:28).

D. Does this text say that baptism has replaced circumcision as a covenant sign? No, here baptism is related only to SPIRITUAL circumcision; in the OT only PHYSICAL circumcision was the covenant sign. The two are not related, except that the latter is used as an illustration of the former.

V. 1 PETER 3:20-21. A. BAPTISM NOW SAVES—as the flood water (in some way) saved the people in the ark. In this analogy, the flood water is the symbol; baptism is the reality. Peter does not say baptism is “just symbolic” of the salvation event. B. AN APPEAL TO GOD. The question is this: HOW does baptism save? 1. NOT by washing dirt off the body. The physical side of baptism does not save. 2. From the human side, that which saves is the spiritual APPEAL (eperotema) to God for cleansing of the soul. This is the “calling on His name” of Acts 22:16. 3. In this context the verb used here (eperotema) does not mean “pledge” (contra the NIV). C. A GOOD CONSCIENCE – which God gives us through the working of the double cure. See Hebrews 10:22. D. THROUGH CHRIST’S RESURRECTION – which is baptism’s saving power (see v. 22). 12

1. Everything about salvation ultimately depends on Christ’s triumphant conquest of death and his eternal reign in heaven. See Rom. 4:25. 2. HOW does the resurrection of Christ give baptism its saving power? a. It shows the power and faithfulness by which he will answer our “appeal.” b. It establishes Christ’s authority over all things. (1) He is seated at God’s right hand, exercising all power. (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36) (2) Being thus exalted, he gives gifts (of salvation) to men – Eph. 4:8 – including forgiveness, a good conscience, and the indwelling Spirit. (3) These gifts are offered in the gospel and given in baptism by Christ’s authority as the risen Lord.

PART FIVE: QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS

I. Isn’t the idea that baptism is for salvation a relatively new view, from A. Campbell in the early 1800s?

A. Absolutely not. The view explained here was the consensus Christian view for 1,500 years, from the beginning up through Martin Luther. 1. We could give pages of quotations from Luther to this effect. I will pass along just a few. In answer to the question, “What benefits does baptism bestow?” he says that first of all “it effects [produces] forgiveness of sins.” In baptism “the forgiveness takes place through God’s covenant.” "Through baptism [the sinner] is bathed in the blood of Christ and is cleansed from sins." Baptism brings not only forgiveness but also the new birth. He says, "Both the forgiveness and the driving out of sins are the work of baptism." It is appropriate to speak of baptism as the time when “a person is born again and made new.” In short, “Through baptism man is saved.” "To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save." We "receive in the water the promised salvation." To those who accused him of teaching salvation by works, Luther replied, "It is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God's." 2. For the sources of these quotes, and for other quotations from the early church to Luther, see my chapter one in the book edited by David Fletcher, Baptism and the Remission of Sins, now published by Hester Publications.

B. The NEW view, which separated baptism from salvation, was created by Huldreich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer who was Luther’s contemporary and Calvin’s predecessor (See my chapter two in the Fletcher book for detailed data, quotes, and sources). 1. In 1525 he declared that everyone before him had been wrong. He knew his view was new. 2. He separated baptism from salvation for reasons like these: a. Saying baptism is for salvation compromises grace, since baptism is a work (Eph. 2:8-9). b. Only the blood of Christ can remove sin, not the waters of baptism. c. Tying salvation to baptism limits the sovereignty of God. God can save anytime. d. We cannot make spiritual salvation dependent on material stuff (i.e., water) in any way. 3. Thus Zwingli originated the “faith alone” view of salvation. He said, “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism: it is always by faith alone.” “We are saved by faith only.” 4. Texts that seem to connect baptism with salvation are talking about spiritual baptism only. 5. So what is the (new) meaning of baptism? To answer this question Zwingli created a whole new approach to the Bible, now called COVENANT THEOLOGY. a. God has only ONE covenant of grace with man: the one made with Abraham, Gen. 12. b. He has had only one covenant people; there is no difference between Israel & Church. 13

c. Also, there has been only ONE COVENANT SIGN ever since Abraham. At first it was circumcision, but now its outward form is baptism. These are identical in meaning. d. Thus baptism inherits the meaning of circumcision; it is an outward sign that someone already belongs to the covenant people of God. 6. Zwingli also added to baptism the meaning of the Latin word, sacramentum: it is one’s public testimony or pledge to be faithful to the covenant. 7. Nothing that happens in baptism is God’s work, and nothing is for the sake of the one being baptized. It is all man’s work, and it is for the benefit of the church congregation.

C. Most Protestants have adopted Zwingli’s new view in varying degrees.

II. Doesn’t the NT teach that salvation is by FAITH ALONE? Doesn’t your view contradict this? NO! The common view of “faith alone” is faulty because it does not distinguish means from conditions.

A. “Faith alone” is actually true, in the sense that faith is the ONLY MEANS by which sinners receive salvation. Thus it is a necessary CONDITION for being saved.

B. But there are other conditions besides the one means. Specifically, another condition is the TIME that God has specified when salvation will be given—and that time is baptism. As Col. 2:12 says, we are saved THROUGH FAITH—as the means, but IN BAPTISM—as the time.

C. As an illustration, if one desires to get light out of a lamp, it must be connected with a power source, i.e., the electric current is the wiring of a house. The means of connecting is the PLUG at the end of a wire that fits into a socket where the electricity is waiting. That is the one means of acquiring light, and it is a condition for lighting the lamp—but it is not the ONLY condition. The switch must be turned on, and the lamp must have a bulb. I.e., the plug as the means is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

D. Just because some texts mention only faith as a condition for salvation does not mean that there are no other conditions. This is something we grant when these other conditions are mentioned. 1. Sometimes only repentance is specified for salvation (Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19; 2 Peter 3:9), but we readily accept that other conditions must also be met. 2. When only confession is so mentioned (Matt. 10:32), we know that other conditions must be present (Rom. 10:9-10 lists it along with faith). 3. There are times when even baptism is the only condition mentioned (Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:21), but we know this is not the only one (In Acts 2:38 is it mentioned only with repentance).

III. If we say that salvation depends in any way on baptism, are we not denying grace?

A. Here is the Zwinglian argument, based on their faulty understanding of Eph. 2:8-9: 1. Premise #1 – We are saved by grace through faith, not by works. 2. Premise #2 – Baptism is a work. 3. Conclusion – Therefore baptism can have nothing to do with receiving salvation.

B. This argument fails because it does not properly understand the meaning of “WORKS.” More precisely, the argument is faulty because the term “works” (properly understood) does not mean the same thing in the two premises. Biblically, it is used in two different senses. 1. Most people, when they see the term “works,” assume it means “something you do.” That’s how they apply it in the argument—in both premises. 14

2. Martin Luther challenged this when his Zwinglian foes attacked his strong view of baptism as being salvation by works. He said: baptism is not MY work; it is GOD’S work. 3. I tried this approach for a long time, but ultimately had to admit: in a real sense baptism IS “my work.” 4. This has led me to examine more closely just exactly what the Bible means by “works.” And I have found that it does not always mean the same thing!

C. On one hand, sometimes the Bible does use “works” to mean “something you do.” But here is a surprise: Sometimes it applies “works” language to something YOU do—for salvation! So it is wrong to say that a work as “something you do” can never be necessary for salvation! 1. This surprising conclusion comes from John 6:27-29, where Jesus Himself uses “works” terminology, uses it in the sense of “something you do,” and applies it to something WE MUST DO to be saved—namely, FAITH. 2. Why is this so earth-shaking? Because PAUL says – we are saved by grace through faith, and NOT by works. This seems to be a contradiction between Jesus and Paul! Jesus says faith IS a work and necessary for salvation; Paul says faith is NOT a work, since a work cannot be for salvation. 3. How can we reconcile Paul and Jesus? The answer is this: THEY ARE USING THE TERM “WORKS” IN TWO DIFFERENT SENSES! Paul uses the term in a NEW SENSE. Understanding this not only allows us to reconcile Paul and Jesus; it also allows us to show why baptism for salvation does not contradict salvation by grace! This is a key idea!

D. My Zwinglian foe, Norman Geisler, agrees with this to a point, but he tries to define Paul’s distinctive meaning of works as “external things we do,” i.e. physical acts (See his Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Sin [and] Salvation, pp. 496-497). 1. This, he says, still excludes baptism from salvation, since it is a physical act and therefore a work in Paul’s sense. 2. I refute him by citing Rom. 10:9-10, where Paul says the physical act of confessing Jesus with your mouth is necessary for salvation. Thus the works that have no relation to salvation (as in Eph. 2:9) cannot be defined as physical deeds (e.g., baptism).

E. So what DOES Paul mean by “works” when he says we cannot be saved by works? He means exactly what he says when he uses the phrase “works of law” – Rom. 3:20; 3:28; Gal. 2:16. 1. Note: Paul uses no definite articles in the Greek. It is simply “works of law.” 2. This is important: Rom. 3:28 – 4:8 shows that Paul means “works of law” even when he uses the term “works” without adding “of law” – as in Eph. 2:8-9. SO: What are Paul’s “works of law”? 3. Wrong answers: a) obedience to the Law of Moses; b) works with a legalistic motive. 4. Right answer: anything we do that is a response to the law code we are living under. a. Everyone, as a creature of the Creator-God, is under a law code of some kind. b. Since the New Covenant began, the only law code that matters is the New Covenant teaching about how to live a holy life. (Someone counted over 1,000 NT instructions on how to live.) c. But doesn’t Paul say we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14-15)? Yes, but here he is not talking about our law CODE. Rather, this is about the law SYSTEM of salvation. d. We are almost constantly doing works of law, i.e., almost everything we do is a response to some divine law that governs how we should live in our time. e. Actually “works of law” include even our SINFUL deeds, our wrong responses to our law code! This is seen by comparing Romans 3:28 with 4:6-8. 15

5. When Paul says we are justified “by faith, apart from works of law” (Rom. 3:28), and “not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:9), this is exactly the same thing: We are not saved by how well we are living up to the requirements of our law code. Such works HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING UNDER GRACE. 6. The deal here is this: baptism does not belong to the things called “works of law.”

F. Here is the point: In Paul’s vocabulary, the term “works” does not have the general meaning of “things we do.” “Works” are specifically things we do in response to our law code. BUT – there is ANOTHER WHOLE CATEGORY of specific “things we do”— namely, what Paul calls obedience to the gospel. Law commands are one thing; gospel commands are another. See Romans 10:16 (ESV), and 2 Thess. 1:8. 1. Gospel commands are instructions given to sinners (not just creatures) by God in his role as Redeemer (not Creator) that tell sinners how to be saved (not how to live their daily lives). 2. This is where baptism belongs, along with faith, repentance, and confession.

G. Thus we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works of law. Baptism, however, like faith itself, is something we do in obedience to the gospel, not as a work of law. Therefore, as a condition for salvation, it is consistent with grace and does not contradict grace.

IV. How can a physical event (baptism) have a spiritual result (e.g., justification)? A. First, baptism is not just a physical event; it has a divine spiritual side. See Heb. 10:22. B. Second, it is wrong to think there is a dualistic antithesis between the physical and the spiritual (e.g., the one Savior has two natures; the atonement combined a physical cross with propitiation).

V. When is a child ready to be baptized (i.e., when does the child reach “the age of accountability”)? A. First, children are not born under original sin, but under original grace. They do not inherit Adam’s sin, thanks to Christ’s atoning work (Rom. 5:12-19). No baptism is needed here.

B. In their early years children do sinful things, but are not held accountable for them, because they do not yet understand the phenomenon called LAW. See Rom. 4:15, and compare Rom. 7:9. “Where there is no law” includes “Where there is no understanding of law.”

C. Until a child understands what it means to be under God’s law code, God does not hold his sins against him. But when this understanding comes, the protective cocoon of original grace disappears, and the child enters the state of spiritual death. D. The main element in coming to accountability is NOT how much a child knows about Jesus or even about God as such. Simply wanting to “be like Jesus” does not count. Accountability is determined not by how much one understands the gospel, but how much he understands the LAW. First law, then grace.

VI. How much does ANY person have to know for his or her baptism to be valid? Two things: A. How much must one know about Christian teaching in general? The “essentials,” i.e., a basic understanding – of God; of Jesus as Savior and Lord, including his saving work; of what it means to be a sinner; of the basic plan of salvation; of the basics of life as a Christian.

16

B. How much must one know about the meaning of baptism itself? 1. We cannot expect a new convert to have a mature knowledge of the whole subject. 2. At a minimum the convert must understand that in the act of baptism, GOD IS WORKING, doing something that brings salvation. See Col. 2:12. 3. The convert needs to understand that in baptism God is handing him or her a marvelous gift— the gift of salvation, as a kind of wrapped package. In the years ahead that person will have the opportunity to unwrap that package and explore all its nooks and crannies.

VII. What is the salvation status of sincere believers who have never been properly baptized? We sometimes call these the “pious unimmersed” (or the P.U. folks).

A. We know that since Pentecost, Christian baptism has been the designated time when God bestows salvation on penitent, believing sinners. Does God ever make exceptions to this rule? 1. In the early centuries of the church, this question arose about not-yet-baptized martyrs. 2. The common approach then was to count the convert’s desire to be baptized as taking the place of the baptism itself, when the latter was physically impossible. This “baptism of desire” (sometimes called a “baptism of blood”) was deemed an acceptable exception. 3. This conclusion was based on a knowledge of the gracious side of God’s nature.

B. The P.U. problem today is much more complicated than in those early days. “Pious unimmersed” does not cover all the problem situations in which baptismal instruction is not obeyed properly. The problem has to do with “baptismal obedience” – call it the B.O. problem. E.g. – 1. Where one has had no outward baptism, but is assumed to have received Spirit baptism. 2. Where one has been immersed, but for the wrong reason. 3. Where there has been no immersion at all – just sprinkling (for whatever reason). 4. Where one was baptized in whatever form for whatever reason – but as an infant.

C. What shall be our approach to such B.O. folks? I have adopted a principle called CONSCIENTIOUS RESPONSE TO AVAILABLE LIGHT. On Judgment Day God will judge each individual based on their conscientious response to whatever revealed light they could know. 1. Note: ONLY GOD can know how much light is available, and how conscientious one has been in responding to it. 2. Therefore ONLY GOD can actually apply this principle, and only in the after-life.

D. This principle is not just some abnormal exception or unexpected loop-hole in the way God deals with people. It is a basic principle of divine activity that God applies to all his dealings with us (i.e., when God lays down a rule, he is prepared to make exceptions based on circumstances). 1. What Biblical basis do we have for coming to such a conclusion? a. Jeremiah 18:7-10. An example of this: Jonah 3:4b, 10. Lesson: God is always prepared to adjust his stated purpose if the circumstances change. b. Matthew 11:20-24. Lesson: Different people have different responses to the same light, and God takes that into account in judgment. c. Especially Romans 4:15. Lesson: lack of knowledge alters application of a rule. (1) The rule: “The Law brings about wrath” (when violated). (2) The exception: “Where there is no law” – there can be no violation, or wrath. (3) The basic idea is that where there is NO KNOWLEDGE of a law, failure to follow it will not be punished.

17

(4) Examples: pagans are not held responsible for the special revelation they cannot know; infants are not accountable for laws they cannot understand; the same would apply to the mentally challenged. 2. This, I believe, is the Biblical basis for the principle of judgment according to conscientious response to available light. I believe it applies where there is a problem with baptismal obedience.

E. How does this principle affect the way we relate to the P.U. folks? 1. The principle requires infinite knowledge and can be applied only by God. We cannot apply it to anyone. The only thing we can apply is the rule. Only God can make exceptions. 2. The principle has nothing to do with whether one is a Christian during this lifetime. The only ones we can count as saved in this lifetime are the ones who have obeyed the rules. This is a principle that God applies after this lifetime. 3. So this does not change how we relate to others, how we evangelize. Anyone who has not been Biblically baptized needs to hear the gospel and be baptized.

F. How should we evangelize a P.U. person? 1. We cannot assume anything about the possible salvation of an unbaptized person. 2. We must preach the rule, and the convert should understand and believe the rule for baptism. 3. The convert should submit NOW to the revealed plan for baptism, and be immersed for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4. Where there is ambiguity about how God may have been working in a P.U. person’s life, before baptism one may “call upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16), asking Him to do NOW whatever He has not already done, leaving it up to God to know what that may be. One may say, “Gracious God, thank you for whatever grace you MAY have already given me; thank you for giving me a clearer knowledge of baptism. I now humbly pray that you will give me all the salvation blessings you have promised as I submit to your will.”

VIII. What shall we do now? What shall we do about almost 500 years of false teaching about baptism?

A. We should accept with all our hearts the rule of baptism: the sinner is baptized for salvation.

B. If God has bestowed any grace on others at another time, that is an exception to the rule that only He knows about and has the right to grant. We must preach the rule, not a possible exception. C. It is not our right to JUDGE PEOPLE regarding eternal destiny; only God can do that. But it IS our right and responsibility to JUDGE DOCTRINE. See Titus 1:9. D. But that would be alleging that most of Protestant Christendom has been wrong on this subject for nearly 500 years, and that most Protestants today are still wrong! My answer: SO??? Which is better: to keep teaching falsehood, or to humbly admit error and try to correct it?

E. In the mid-third century the church had to deal with what was called “heretic baptism,” i.e., whether baptism received in the many heretical sects that existed then was true baptism. One of the major Christian leaders, Cyprian, said it was not, and said that those leaving such sects and uniting with the Orthodox Church should receive true baptism. Some disagreed with this, however; and as a result many were accepted into the mainline church without such a rebaptism, and died in that state. (This was another group of P.U.—or B.O.—folks.) So if Cyprian is right, how shall we think about those whose only baptism was a “heretic baptism”? Here is Cyprian’s wise comment: 18

“But someone says, ‘What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?’ The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. Nevertheless it does not follow that, because there was error at one time, there must always be error; since it is more fitting for wise and God-fearing men, gladly and without delay to obey the truth when laid open and perceived, than pertinaciously and obstinately to struggle against brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics (Epistle 72:23. Ante-Nicene Fathers, V:385).”

PART SIX: INFANT BAPTISM

INTRODUCTION. The first reference to infant baptism is in Tertullian’s treatise, “On Baptism,” in A.D. 205, where he argues against it. Over the next 25 years several writers defended it, e.g., Origen and Hippolytus. A. Why did belief in infant baptism arise? Because everyone knew that baptism was for salvation from sin, and about this time Christians began to believe in a moderate form of original sin.

B. Christians disagreed about infant baptism until Augustine (d. A.D. 430) developed a full doctrine of original sin and persuaded everyone to accept the necessity of infant baptism to take it away. C. Here we will see that in the New Testament there is no basis at all for infant baptism.

I. The THEOLOGY of baptism shows that it is meaningful for and intended ONLY for those who are of the age of understanding and accountability.

A. Baptism is for BELIEVERS: those who can hear, believe, repent, and pray. 1. Hearing precedes baptism: Acts 18:8; see Romans 10:17. 2. Believing precedes baptism. Col. 2:12; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:31-34; 18:8. 3. Repenting precedes baptism. Acts 2:38; 3:19. 4. Praying precedes baptism. Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21.

B. Baptism is for SINNERS: its purpose is to take away the “double trouble” caused by sin. Therefore it has no meaning for anyone who is not a sinner in the full sense of the word. 1. The only rationale for infant baptism, in light of this, is belief in some form of original sin. This was its original justification, and some groups today baptize infants for this reason. 2. The Bible, however, does not teach the doctrine of original sin. Rather, it teaches the concept of original grace. Romans 5:12-19 shows that whatever curse the human race WOULD have received from Adam’s sin was canceled for all by the work of Christ. Babies are born redeemed by the blood of Christ. (See Cottrell’s commentary on Romans.) 3. Christ’s invitation to the children (Matt. 18:1-5; Mark 10:13ff.) is often used to justify infant baptism. But notice: Jesus invited the children to come to him as they were, with no need for cleansing of any kind. It is not the children who need changing, but the adults (Matt. 18:3).

C. Since baptism is designed for thinking, believing sinners, it is impossible for an infant to BE baptized—just as it is impossible for them to enter into a contract, get married, or vote.

19

II. An argument against infant baptism is the SILENCE of the NT regarding infant baptism, both in apostolic teaching and apostolic practice.

A. It is inferred that household baptisms must have involved baptism of infants: Acts 11:14; 16:15; 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16. 1. This presumes that (a) every household included infants, and that (b) every individual in the household was baptized. There is no basis for either presumption. 2. In these households, those who were baptized also heard, believed, rejoiced, and ministered. See Acts 10:2; 16:32, 34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16 & 16:15. Common sense tells us that infants are not included in such affirmations.

B. What can we conclude from the unquestionable silence on this issue? 1. First, we CANNOT conclude, in and of itself, that silence implies prohibition! 2. Silence is consistent and compatible with the theology of baptism, summarized above. 3. Paul’s silence about infant baptism in the Judaizing controversy disproves infant baptism.

C. A large portion of Christendom says that the NT’s silence on infant baptism proves that it is required, because if God had wanted us NOT to baptize infants, he would have told us so! This is the point of the next section.

III. The Argument for Infant Baptism Based on the Idea of Covenant Unity (i.e., Zwingli’s theology). Zwingli said we are under the same covenant God made with Abraham; therefore we must apply to infants the same covenant sign God gave to Abraham (changed to an unbloody form). WRONG!

A. The OLD COVENANT: begun with Abraham, combined with the Mosaic Law (see Gal. 3). 1. The PURPOSE of the Old Covenant: preparation for the first coming of the Messiah. Its purpose did not include salvation for Israelites, and the covenant sign (circumcision) had no salvation significance. 2. This purpose (of preparation) was FULFILLED when Jesus came the first time: Acts 13:31-34. a. Abraham received the promise as part of the covenant, but did not receive its fulfillment. b. The promise was fulfilled through national Israel (in part), but not to them. 3. THROUGH whom was the promise fulfilled? Abraham and his seed—Jesus! Gal. 3:16. 4. TO whom is the promise FULFILLED? To US—Jews and Gentiles—who believe in Jesus. a. Compare the language of Heb. 11:13, 17, 39-40; Acts 13:33. b. Acts 13:33 says: the covenant promise God made with Abraham HAS BEEN FULFILLED! Therefore that covenant NO LONGER EXISTS! 5. We CANNOT be under the Abrahamic covenant, because Jesus fulfilled it. The Abrahamic covenant cannot be perpetuated beyond Christ. Covenant theology is a false system!

B. The NEW COVENANT is the one we are under. See Jeremiah 31:31-34. 1. Its BEGINNING: It began with Jesus, not with Abraham. See Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6, 14. This is the testimony of the book of Hebrews, especially chs. 8 & 9. 2. The PURPOSE of the New Covenant: not preparation for the first coming of the Messiah, but participation in the actual salvation brought by him. 3. The PARTIES of the New Covenant: God and individuals, not God and a nation. a. The basis for membership is personal faith, not physical birth. New Covenant membership comes by means of the NEW, spiritual birth. See John 1:12-13; 3:3-5. b. Infant baptism based on the Zwinglian concept of covenant unity is a reversion to the FLESH as the grounds for belonging to God’s people. It substitutes flesh for spirit. In 20

Phil. 3:3 Paul declares that we Christians “are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

C. Is there a parallel between circumcision and baptism as covenant signs? 1. In the OT, physical circumcision was a sign of membership in the covenant community of physical Israel only. It meant nothing as to whether one was a part of the “Israel within Israel”—the remnant of saved Israelites. See Rom. 9:6-7. 2. In the NT, physical circumcision is constantly related to Israel according to the flesh. It is connected with the Law of Moses and with the keeping of the Law. 3. In both OT and NT, physical circumcision was used to illustrate the inward change of the heart involved in salvation. (Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:25-29; Col. 2:11-13) But physical circumcision is never itself related to the state of personal salvation. 4. To say that circumcision equals baptism distorts the meaning of one or the other. Either it elevates circumcision too highly, giving it a spiritual meaning never intended for it; or it diminishes baptism to the role of “sign and seal”—a phrase never used in the NT for baptism.

D. Going back to the idea of silence: Paul’s silence concerning a supposed connection between circumcision and baptism during the Judaizing controversy proves no such connection exists. 1. The Judaizers insisted one had to submit to OT Law, including circumcision, to be a Christian. Both Acts and Paul attack this view. Note: IF the Abrahamic covenant still applies, and if baptism has simply replaced circumcision, this would have been a perfect refutation of the Judaizers’ heresy! 2. BUT – no such connection is ever mentioned, e.g., in Acts 15 or Galatians, where we would expect it to have been invoked if it were real. 3. Bottom line: Paul NEVER argues, “You don’t NEED physical circumcision because you have its replacement, baptism.” Such an argument would have squelched the Judaizers, but Paul never even hints at such a thing.

PART SEVEN: SUGGESTED READINGS A. Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical Study. College Press, 1989; 2 edition, 2006. This gives deep yet easy-to-understand explanations of 12 New Testament texts about the meaning of baptism. 171 pages (If you can read only one thing, this should be it). B. David Fletcher, editor, Baptism and the Remission of Sins. College Press, 1990; 2 printing: Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2009. Especially, read the introduction, and chapters 1 & 2 (which are by Jack Cottrell). The first two chapters show how the meaning of baptism was turned upside down in the early 16th century by Huldreich Zwingli. C. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1973. Some good background materials, and mostly good exegetical work. Written by a British Baptist, but comes to mostly Biblical conclusions about the meaning of baptism. More detailed and technical that Cottrell, Baptism, above. 436 pages.

D. Anthony Cross, Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma Semper Reformandum. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications (Wipf and Stock), 2013. Similar to Beasley-Murray, but more up-to- date. 420 pages.

21

E. Miscellaneous essays from Jack Cottrell’s website, www.jackcottrell.com . Go to the website; type “baptism” into the search box; enjoy! Some of the essays are as follows: 1. “Is Baptism the First Step of Obedience?” 2. “Is Baptism a Work?” 3. “Can One Be ‘Spiritually Alive’ Without Baptism?” 4. “Is Baptism a Part of the Gospel?” 5. “Is the ‘Baptism of Desire’ Sufficient?” 6. “Baptism for Salvation: Its Biblical Basis.” 7. “Was John’s Baptism ‘For the Forgiveness of Sins’?” 8. “Is Baptism a New Condition for Salvation?” 9. “’Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?’ Questioning the Question.” 10. “The Age of Accountability and Baptism.” 11. “Are Sinners ‘Begotten’ to New Life Before Being ‘Born Again’ in Baptism?” 12. “Baptism and Calling upon His Name.” 13. “What Is Baptism for the Dead?” 14. “Acts 22:16 and Baptism.”

22