Is Water Baptism Important?
Many of my ancestors, as Swiss/German Anabaptists, gave their lives for this issue. To them, baptism was a life-and-death issue. Why?
First, we must remember that for the State-Churches, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Reformed, etc., this was a control issue. For over 1000 years in Europe, marriages, births and deaths were recorded via the local church roster. If a citizen refused church membership, it was rebellion against the state!
And church membership was initiated by the christening ceremony, when a child was brought to the local parish chapel, sprinkled with water (and oil and salt) and given their legal 'Christian' name.
For a citizen to question the spiritual validity of that infant "baptism" was to question the very authority of the State.
But for those who had finally begun to read the Bible for themselves, it became clear: Biblically, baptism is a personal choice. Never in the Bible is there any record of baptizing an infant. Nor is there any command to baptize infants.
It really is no wonder that those who began doing adult baptisms, coming as they did from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc, did basically the same ritualized sprinkling/dribbling ceremony, on adults.
But the Greek language is very clear: the very word 'baptizo' literally means 'to dip, or whelm.'
And 'baptizo' was an everyday Greek word.
The Greek word 'baptizo' meant also, 'to wash'.
For instance, dirty dishes were put into a basin of hot water. They were 'baptizo'-ed.
They were both overwhelmed by the hot water, and were washed clean.
This is the meaning of the Greek word.
There's another Greek word, 'bapto' which is different in meaning from 'baptizo.'
"Bapto" means to be dipped, but essentially unchanged.
"Baptizo" means to be submerged, and changed by that submersion!
When John came baptizing in the Jordan, the Jews knew what he was doing. He didn't have to explain.
How did they know?
They were familiar with the concept of ritual washing, because of the Law.
God required unclean persons to wash their bodies in running water.
Even today, there is archeological evidence of this being done in Jesus' day.
On one side of the Temple mount, there are many 'mikvah' baths, big enough for two persons to walk down steps into each stone bath, for ritual cleansing, before entering the Temple. The water trickled from one bath to another, until it exited the lowest one.
So it was clear to the Jews what John was doing. He was declaring the entire Jewish nation to be unclean, needing repentance and cleansing before God.
And he called them all to running water - the Jordan river - and there he would 'baptizo' them.
He dipped them. That's what the word means.
Once you realize this, the New Testament becomes clearer.
And you realize the Catholic state church had strayed far, far from the Apostles' doctrine concerning baptism.
The fact that the Apostles immersed new believers is easily seen in many Biblical accounts.
Never do you read that water was brought to be used to baptize new converts. Instead, it is said the converts went to the water.
For instance, the Ethiopian Eunuch traveling through the desert had a hindrance to being baptized, until they came to an oasis. And then he exclaimed "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Because finally, there was water sufficient to 'baptizo' him.
Do you really think this manager of Queen Candace's household had no sense to bring drinking water with him, to travel through the desert? Of course there was plenty of water for drinking! But those bottles of drinking water were not sufficient to 'baptizo' an adult human.
Another slant... do you read at all in the New Testament that only certain Christians are allowed to do the baptizing of new converts? I don't. For instance, Phillip was only a deacon, but he baptized the eunuch whom he led to the Lord.
Furthermore, who was Ananias, who baptized Saul of Tarsus? There is no record of his ever being a church official. He was a member of the laity. But God hand-picked him to baptize Saul.
In fact, there is no instruction at all in the New Testament as to who is forbidden to baptize.
Why then do churches make an issue of who is allowed to baptize new converts?
I suspect strongly that it's a power issue, rooted deeply in the Catholic mindset we inherited through the Reformation. Those who love power enjoy denying it to others.
But baptism has nothing to do with power structure.
Baptism is all about identification with Christ.
Why should not the one who wins a soul to the Lord be the one who baptizes them in water?
This is the truly Scriptural pattern.
Which brings us to another set of questions:
Why do we not baptize immediately? (In Acts, they baptized immediately!)
Why do we wait around a few days, weeks, months, or years?
What does the waiting say about us?
And what does this waiting do to a new believer?
I suspect the reason we wait is because of what we've been taught about what baptism actually is, and what it does or doesn't do.
I suppose it's understandable for a Reformation-minded person to jump to the opposite extreme, when trying to correct mistaken Catholic doctrines. The Catholics taught that if a baby dies unbaptized, its soul went to hell, unsaved. It didn't even get to have a chance at purgatory! Because in their doctrine, purgatory is only to clean up baptized Christians.
Such teaching is so reprehensible that it's understandable how adult-baptizers came to say baptism doesn't do anything at all, spiritually. It's only "an outward expression of an inward grace."
In most churches today, baptism is nothing but a witnessing tool.
It's 'to tell everyone that you are now identified with Christ.'
Big Problem:
The Bible never says any such thing about baptism.
Baptism is not a "good work to be done before others, to be seen of them."
Jesus actually strictly forbade doing good works for the purpose of being seen!
Never does the Bible speak of baptism as an outward work to represent something that has already happened inwardly.
Look at these verses that say what baptism actually does:
1Peter 3:20 "...in the days of Noah... eight souls were saved by water." 21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Do you see that?
Grammar matters. God knows how to use grammar to say what He means.
The noun is 'baptism.' The verb is 'doth save.'
Therefore, biblically, "baptism saves'.
Many believe such a statement to be false doctrine.
But there it is, in the Bible.
Of course, it's not the water that saves us. Baptism without repentance and faith is empty works.
And works without faith are dead.
Just as in the Old Testament, an animal sacrifice without repentance was repulsive to God, and worked no covering of sin at all!
Even so, in the New Testament, baptism without repentance is also ineffective and repulsive to God.
But, just as in the Old Testament those animal sacrifices were required by God (or else the repentance wasn't accepted!) even so today, God has provided an expression of repentance, by which we can approach the New Covenant.
The early church viewed baptism as the very doorway thru which one became part of Christ.
And the Scriptures support that view.
When someone is truly born again, they will desire immediate baptism.
That's the work of the Holy Ghost upon their hearts.
And the church downplays baptism, denying them the desire of their hearts,
telling them they don't need to be baptized right away...
that baptism doesn't really do anything for them.
I beg to differ, based upon the Word of God!
Look at the following passages:
Act 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
This is so poetic we tend to slide right over it, missing what it actually says.
Ananias tells Saul that baptism itself is effective in washing away sins.
If you heard someone preaching this idea, that you need to be baptized to wash away your sins, would you reject their words? But here it is, in the Bible!
Another passage:
Remember Acts 2? Thousands heard the Gospel, and wanted to repent!
In desperation, they asked Peter what to do!
Peter's answer:
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."
Again, grammar matters. Here's the basic sentence structure:
"(Repent and be baptized) FOR the remission of sins."
Grammatically, both actions are required to actuate the effect.
Repentance without baptism isn't enough.
Baptism without repentance isn't enough.
Both the inward change and the outward action are required.
This is essentially the same thing Jesus said in Mark 16:16.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Suppose I would say, "whoever comes to the table and picks up the fork and eats, will get dinner.
But whoever doesn't come to the table, won't get dinner."
In that statement, I would effectively be implying that coming to the table naturally included picking up the fork and eating. I would also be implying that anyone who refuses to come to the table will not get the dinner I have prepared, even if they go find a fork elsewhere, and even if they open a can of tuna!
Jesus' statement is the same structure. Whoever believes will also be baptized. And those are the ones who will be saved.
But whoever does not believe, will be damned, whether they are baptized or not... because baptism isn't valid unless accompanied by inward change.
The fact that the water of baptism is not what saves us, does not change the fact that obedient faith expressed through baptism DOES save us!
Of course, this leaves us with the question, "What about those who never heard that baptism is necessary?"
Well, what about those who have never heard that Jesus died for them?
God has compassion on those who never heard, but who still sought Him to the best of their knowledge. But those who resist the truth, refusing to be told, are held to a stricter standard.
So, do we withhold the truth from others, so they won't be held to account for knowledge they probably won't receive? Of course not! Jesus gave us a Great Commission, right?
(Note: the Great Commission includes water immersion!)
And if we don't obey that Commission, we ourselves will be held to account!
Which is why I'm telling you.
What will you do with it?
Maybe those Anabaptists weren't so far off base, about the importance of baptism.
How about us? Would we consider baptism that important of an issue?
Would we be willing to die, for the privilege of being baptized correctly?
First, we must remember that for the State-Churches, such as Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Reformed, etc., this was a control issue. For over 1000 years in Europe, marriages, births and deaths were recorded via the local church roster. If a citizen refused church membership, it was rebellion against the state!
And church membership was initiated by the christening ceremony, when a child was brought to the local parish chapel, sprinkled with water (and oil and salt) and given their legal 'Christian' name.
For a citizen to question the spiritual validity of that infant "baptism" was to question the very authority of the State.
But for those who had finally begun to read the Bible for themselves, it became clear: Biblically, baptism is a personal choice. Never in the Bible is there any record of baptizing an infant. Nor is there any command to baptize infants.
It really is no wonder that those who began doing adult baptisms, coming as they did from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc, did basically the same ritualized sprinkling/dribbling ceremony, on adults.
But the Greek language is very clear: the very word 'baptizo' literally means 'to dip, or whelm.'
And 'baptizo' was an everyday Greek word.
The Greek word 'baptizo' meant also, 'to wash'.
For instance, dirty dishes were put into a basin of hot water. They were 'baptizo'-ed.
They were both overwhelmed by the hot water, and were washed clean.
This is the meaning of the Greek word.
There's another Greek word, 'bapto' which is different in meaning from 'baptizo.'
"Bapto" means to be dipped, but essentially unchanged.
"Baptizo" means to be submerged, and changed by that submersion!
When John came baptizing in the Jordan, the Jews knew what he was doing. He didn't have to explain.
How did they know?
They were familiar with the concept of ritual washing, because of the Law.
God required unclean persons to wash their bodies in running water.
Even today, there is archeological evidence of this being done in Jesus' day.
On one side of the Temple mount, there are many 'mikvah' baths, big enough for two persons to walk down steps into each stone bath, for ritual cleansing, before entering the Temple. The water trickled from one bath to another, until it exited the lowest one.
So it was clear to the Jews what John was doing. He was declaring the entire Jewish nation to be unclean, needing repentance and cleansing before God.
And he called them all to running water - the Jordan river - and there he would 'baptizo' them.
He dipped them. That's what the word means.
Once you realize this, the New Testament becomes clearer.
And you realize the Catholic state church had strayed far, far from the Apostles' doctrine concerning baptism.
The fact that the Apostles immersed new believers is easily seen in many Biblical accounts.
Never do you read that water was brought to be used to baptize new converts. Instead, it is said the converts went to the water.
For instance, the Ethiopian Eunuch traveling through the desert had a hindrance to being baptized, until they came to an oasis. And then he exclaimed "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Because finally, there was water sufficient to 'baptizo' him.
Do you really think this manager of Queen Candace's household had no sense to bring drinking water with him, to travel through the desert? Of course there was plenty of water for drinking! But those bottles of drinking water were not sufficient to 'baptizo' an adult human.
Another slant... do you read at all in the New Testament that only certain Christians are allowed to do the baptizing of new converts? I don't. For instance, Phillip was only a deacon, but he baptized the eunuch whom he led to the Lord.
Furthermore, who was Ananias, who baptized Saul of Tarsus? There is no record of his ever being a church official. He was a member of the laity. But God hand-picked him to baptize Saul.
In fact, there is no instruction at all in the New Testament as to who is forbidden to baptize.
Why then do churches make an issue of who is allowed to baptize new converts?
I suspect strongly that it's a power issue, rooted deeply in the Catholic mindset we inherited through the Reformation. Those who love power enjoy denying it to others.
But baptism has nothing to do with power structure.
Baptism is all about identification with Christ.
Why should not the one who wins a soul to the Lord be the one who baptizes them in water?
This is the truly Scriptural pattern.
Which brings us to another set of questions:
Why do we not baptize immediately? (In Acts, they baptized immediately!)
Why do we wait around a few days, weeks, months, or years?
What does the waiting say about us?
And what does this waiting do to a new believer?
I suspect the reason we wait is because of what we've been taught about what baptism actually is, and what it does or doesn't do.
I suppose it's understandable for a Reformation-minded person to jump to the opposite extreme, when trying to correct mistaken Catholic doctrines. The Catholics taught that if a baby dies unbaptized, its soul went to hell, unsaved. It didn't even get to have a chance at purgatory! Because in their doctrine, purgatory is only to clean up baptized Christians.
Such teaching is so reprehensible that it's understandable how adult-baptizers came to say baptism doesn't do anything at all, spiritually. It's only "an outward expression of an inward grace."
In most churches today, baptism is nothing but a witnessing tool.
It's 'to tell everyone that you are now identified with Christ.'
Big Problem:
The Bible never says any such thing about baptism.
Baptism is not a "good work to be done before others, to be seen of them."
Jesus actually strictly forbade doing good works for the purpose of being seen!
Never does the Bible speak of baptism as an outward work to represent something that has already happened inwardly.
Look at these verses that say what baptism actually does:
1Peter 3:20 "...in the days of Noah... eight souls were saved by water." 21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
Do you see that?
Grammar matters. God knows how to use grammar to say what He means.
The noun is 'baptism.' The verb is 'doth save.'
Therefore, biblically, "baptism saves'.
Many believe such a statement to be false doctrine.
But there it is, in the Bible.
Of course, it's not the water that saves us. Baptism without repentance and faith is empty works.
And works without faith are dead.
Just as in the Old Testament, an animal sacrifice without repentance was repulsive to God, and worked no covering of sin at all!
Even so, in the New Testament, baptism without repentance is also ineffective and repulsive to God.
But, just as in the Old Testament those animal sacrifices were required by God (or else the repentance wasn't accepted!) even so today, God has provided an expression of repentance, by which we can approach the New Covenant.
The early church viewed baptism as the very doorway thru which one became part of Christ.
And the Scriptures support that view.
When someone is truly born again, they will desire immediate baptism.
That's the work of the Holy Ghost upon their hearts.
And the church downplays baptism, denying them the desire of their hearts,
telling them they don't need to be baptized right away...
that baptism doesn't really do anything for them.
I beg to differ, based upon the Word of God!
Look at the following passages:
Act 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
This is so poetic we tend to slide right over it, missing what it actually says.
Ananias tells Saul that baptism itself is effective in washing away sins.
If you heard someone preaching this idea, that you need to be baptized to wash away your sins, would you reject their words? But here it is, in the Bible!
Another passage:
Remember Acts 2? Thousands heard the Gospel, and wanted to repent!
In desperation, they asked Peter what to do!
Peter's answer:
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."
Again, grammar matters. Here's the basic sentence structure:
"(Repent and be baptized) FOR the remission of sins."
Grammatically, both actions are required to actuate the effect.
Repentance without baptism isn't enough.
Baptism without repentance isn't enough.
Both the inward change and the outward action are required.
This is essentially the same thing Jesus said in Mark 16:16.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Suppose I would say, "whoever comes to the table and picks up the fork and eats, will get dinner.
But whoever doesn't come to the table, won't get dinner."
In that statement, I would effectively be implying that coming to the table naturally included picking up the fork and eating. I would also be implying that anyone who refuses to come to the table will not get the dinner I have prepared, even if they go find a fork elsewhere, and even if they open a can of tuna!
Jesus' statement is the same structure. Whoever believes will also be baptized. And those are the ones who will be saved.
But whoever does not believe, will be damned, whether they are baptized or not... because baptism isn't valid unless accompanied by inward change.
The fact that the water of baptism is not what saves us, does not change the fact that obedient faith expressed through baptism DOES save us!
Of course, this leaves us with the question, "What about those who never heard that baptism is necessary?"
Well, what about those who have never heard that Jesus died for them?
God has compassion on those who never heard, but who still sought Him to the best of their knowledge. But those who resist the truth, refusing to be told, are held to a stricter standard.
So, do we withhold the truth from others, so they won't be held to account for knowledge they probably won't receive? Of course not! Jesus gave us a Great Commission, right?
(Note: the Great Commission includes water immersion!)
And if we don't obey that Commission, we ourselves will be held to account!
Which is why I'm telling you.
What will you do with it?
Maybe those Anabaptists weren't so far off base, about the importance of baptism.
How about us? Would we consider baptism that important of an issue?
Would we be willing to die, for the privilege of being baptized correctly?
Comments
Post a Comment