SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM
A sermon delivered by Robert Sholl

(All Scripture Quotations Are From The American Standard Version Unless Otherwise Noted)

In Acts 18 we find Paul on his third evangelistic tour. While he continued on to Caesarea, he left Aquila and Priscilla in the ancient city of Ephesus. In his absence, a preacher by the name of Apollos came to Ephesus. Apollos was an eloquent man, but Apollos knew and preached only the baptism of John. We are told that Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and expounded unto him the word of God more accurately. This was a necessity because his preaching on baptism was wrong. It was in need of correcting. The baptism of John was no longer valid. The baptism, which was to be preached under the gospel dispensation, was the baptism of the great commission. It was a baptism into the name of Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20).

Later, in chapter 19, Paul returned to Ephesus where he came upon certain disciples. A disciple is a learner, and these individuals may have identified themselves with the Christians in Ephesus. In conversing with them, Paul detects some deficiency in their learning. This deficiency was most likely caused by the preaching of Apollos. We have this account given to us in Acts 19:1-7. There it is said:

In these passages, Paul asks them if they had received the Holy Spirit when (since, KJV) they believed. They answered that they had not heard the Holy Spirit had been given. Paul then asked them into what then were they baptized. Paul did not ask, "Did you happen to get baptized?" but he asked "Into what then were you baptized?". I bring that out because it illustrates how the inspired writer utilizes the word believe in the book of Acts. It often refers to obeying the whole scheme of redemption. Their baptism had been something other than that of the great commission. They had apparently not heard of the events of Pentecost, or the fact that the gift of the Holy Spirit was predicated upon repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38-39). These individuals had been baptized into John’s baptism, which was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Those who received the baptism of John were then to believe on the Messiah when he came. We are then told that after Paul had instructed them, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit.

We should note that nowhere in the New Testament do we find a case of those who were baptized during John’s ministry being re-baptized after his ministry was concluded. Yet in the previous chapter, we have seen that Apollos had been preaching the baptism of John after it had ceased some 20 years previously. Then Paul finds these men and baptizes them into Christ. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from these individuals is that they had been baptized with a baptism that was no longer valid. Hence, while they had conformed to the act of baptism (immersion), they had been baptized for the wrong reason, and it was therefore invalid. We should also take note that this was not a deliberate act of disobedience, but it was done out of ignorance of the facts concerning Christ and his will. They thought they had been obeying the will of God. Though these individuals were sincere there was something they needed to do.

This illustrates the fact that people can be perfectly sincere, believe they are obeying God’s will, and yet in reality fail to do what God requires of us. One can live under the belief that they are in a proper relationship with God and Christ and still never comply with the divine will. I believe that this is especially true in the case of baptism. There are many who think that they have submitted to biblical baptism, and yet in reality have never done so. These individuals are like those learners in Acts 19; they need to be baptized into Christ. The reason that is the case is because there are so many misconceptions about baptism. There are religious groups who have substituted a human act for the divine act. In addition to that, there are those who have exchanged the divine reason for baptism with a human reason.

Let’s examine two aspects of scriptural baptism and look at these two aspects not in the light of the creeds of men, but in the light of New Testament truth on the subject. Everyone should examine their own lives with a serious and sober mind and determine what action you submitted to and what understanding you had when you were "baptized". If you conclude that you have not been baptized as God requires, we beg you to do it immediately.

The first area I want us to investigate is the so-called mode of baptism. When one refers to the mode of baptism, one is usually referring to the action of applying water to the person. There are three types of actions utilized by the religious world. These are usually sprinkling, pouring or immersion

Many in the religious world will maintain that it makes little or no difference what action was used when they were baptized. I would wholeheartedly agree with that IF the command to be baptized was a generic command. In other words, if baptism just meant to get wet, and the manner in which it was to take place was not specified by the Lord, it would make little difference how it was accomplished. But that is not the case in regard to baptism.

There are two Greek Words that relate to this subject. The first is: baptisma (a similar word, baptismos also occurs in the New Testament). The word is translated as baptism. The other word is baptizo which is translated as baptize. Both of our English words are transliterations where the spelling is Anglicized. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Greek words were not translated (although it is an accepted practice to transliterate sometimes). Baptism carries with it no inherent meaning in English. It is kind of the same issue with the word bishop. The word that is given in many Bible translations as bishop comes from a word meaning overseer. Unlike bishop, however, the word overseer has an inherent meaning in English. The meaning of the word becomes somewhat mysterious because of the lack of any inherent meaning in our language. In the case of baptism and baptized, the words were most likely transliterated because the translation would be in conflict with the practice of the Church of England. But although the meaning is clouded in the English, it is not so in the Greek. So what is the meaning of the word? Lets look at some of the finest lexicons:

1. Thayers:

Baptism: baptisma { bap’-tis-mah}

Definition: immersion, submersion

Baptize- baptizo { bap-tid’-zo}

Definition: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

 

2. A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature says in reference to baptizo: dip, immerse, dip oneself, wash
3. Liddell & Scott’s English-Greek Lexicon: to dip in or under water, soaked in wine

Not only that, but in fact, the root word of baptizo (baptize) is derived from the word bapto. Bapto means to dip and is translated as such. Consider Luke 16:24 where we find the rich man in the Hadean realm. There it is said: "²⁴And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame."

We can get the picture when we consider the meaning of this family of words. It involves immersion or immersing, not pouring or sprinkling. In fact, it is interesting to note that in the Greek Version of the Old Testament, we find a passage which utilizes all three words. From this passage it can be seen that immersion, pouring and sprinkling are not the same actions. In Leviticus 14:15-16 it is said "And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand; and the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before Jehovah:"

There is a difference between the words. But not only does the Greek tell us what the word means, the context in which it is used in the New Testament does so as well. In Romans 6:3-5 we find: " ³Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. ⁵For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;"

Now what do we have in baptism? We have a burial and a resurrection. Which action fits the bill? Immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? The answer is obvious, when a person is buried we don’t just toss a little dirt on them, we put them under the ground. This is why Conybeare and Howson (both members of a denomination that did not use immersion) in their classic work - The Life & Epistles of St. Paul wrote in regards to this passage: "This passage cannot be understood unless it be born in mind that primitive baptism was by immersion."

When we consider these things, it in fact makes no sense even to refer to the mode of baptism the way it is commonly done. The very meaning of the word is immersion. If we are to speak of the mode of baptism, we would speak of immersion in a lake or river or something like that. Because pouring is not immersion, and sprinkling is not immersion, it is not proper to speak of them as modes. They are simply different actions. Now there are many that would agree that baptism in the New Testament was by immersion, but they would also say it makes no difference. Their attitude is that God does not care one way or the other about that. They consider it a trivial thing. But consider this, those who practices these substitutions do so without the sanction of the sacred scriptures. If one argues that it makes no difference, I would ask: Who has told you it does not matter?. Where in God’s word does it say that man can substitute the human will for the divine? Christ tells us in Matthew 7:21 that it is only those who do God’s will that will enter into the kingdom of heaven. We must only do that which God authorizes us to do by his all-sufficient Word (Colossians 3:17, 1 Peter 4:11, 2 Timothy 3:16).

The baptism that was commanded by Christ was for a specific purpose. It fills a certain place in the divine economy. But does it make any difference what one understands concerning baptism? In the religious world professing allegiance to Jesus Christ, there is a near universal acceptance that to be a child of God, one must believe in Christ as the Son of God, confess his name by mouth and that one must repent of sins (although they would give a different order and no all maintain that one must repent). Yet when it comes to the subject of baptism, the vast majority will maintain that it has nothing to do with salvation, that it is a symbol of our salvation, an outward sign of an inward grace. That it is a work, and therefore must be excluded from the plan of salvation. In fact, if it is asserted that one must be baptized for (unto) the remissions of sins, then the charge is made that one is trying to earn his salvation, or that one is putting faith in the water instead of the blood of Christ.

Usually it is asserted that one who believes that baptism is a necessary condition of pardon, does not believe that we are saved by faith. Not only that, but I have heard it asserted (usually subtly and indirectly) in print, in debate, and in person that the Lord’s church is a cult. Now I ask why is that? Is it because the church has secret practices? Is it because we try to brainwash people? Is it because it follows some charismatic leader? Well is it because it cuts off people from their families? The answer to all of these questions is no. None of these accusations have been leveled at the Lord’s church. All we do is conform ourselves to the New Testament pattern for the church. Why then is the Lord’s church sometimes referred to as a cult? Because we assert that baptism is a condition of forgiveness, just like belief in Christ, repentance and confession. The allegation is that we teach works salvation and are therefore a cult. Even if the allegation about works salvation was true, and it is most assuredly not, that is a strange definition of the term cult.

In fact if that claim is true, then just about all religious bodies are cults, because they teach belief and repentance. Consider John 6:18-29: "They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Belief is a work. It is termed the work because it must accompany everything we do. We must walk by faith. It is a work that we must do. If not, Christ should have said; "Why there is no work that you must do, just wait around for the direct operation of the Holy Spirit to give you faith". Faith is a work of God, it is ordained of Him, but it us that must develop faith.

Now consider Luke 13:3 where it is said "I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish". In Acts 17: 30 Paul says that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Repentance is a command of God, we must repent or we will perish. It is a gift from Him in that he grants the opportunity and means to do it (the gospel, Romans 1:16), but it is something we must do. Considering repentance, let us compare these two passages:

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not."

In reference to the same circumstance Christ says in Matthew 12:41:

"The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here."

God relented when He saw the works of the people of Nineveh. When he saw their repentance. Friends, repentance is a work, faith is a work. Are they meritorious works? No. God does not owe sinners salvation; we cannot earn or purchase it. It is by the grace of God that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8), but God has put conditions on it. It is in Christ, where God’s grace operates on the sins of men (Ephesians 1:7). Even though repentance and faith are works, baptism is regarded as this non-essential work (it interesting that baptism is the only thing in process of salvation that we have done to us, something that we submit to, and yet somehow it is a work and therefore non-essential).

God’s word has been clear about the design of baptism. In Mark 16:16 the Lord before his ascension back to the Father, says "Preach the gospel unto every living creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieves shall be condemned.". Now I don’t think it is difficult to misunderstand that passage. Many commentaries spend a lot of space to make it read "He that believes and is not baptized shall still be saved because it is not essential" or "He that believes only is saved because condemnation is based only on disbelief." . I think but for the fact that people want to believe in the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, they would see right through that sophistry.

Let me illustrate. If I were to say "He that believes and is baptized gets 1 million dollars, but he that disbelieves shall get nothing" there would be a lot of people that would want to get baptized today. If it were said "He that believes Noah and enters the ark shall be saved, but he that disbelieves shall perish in the flood", there would be little misunderstanding that you better get on the ark! What is the purpose of the gospel? To save people! It is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). It is not surprising that the Lord gave more emphasis on what to do in order to be saved rather that what to do be lost. In fact the very structure of what the Lord said does not contemplate two types of saved believers, baptized and unbaptized ones. There is only one type of believer who is mentioned here, the baptized believer. Condemnation is conditioned on disbelief. Disbelief in what? In that which was to be preached to every living creature, the gospel of Jesus Christ. The same gospel that tells us how to call upon the name of the Lord by telling us to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16). Disbelief will condemn us because we will not accept or obey what God tells us to do.

There is a second verse I want us to look at in reference to the design of . It is found in Acts 2:38: "Repent ye & be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sin & ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." .Is this verse hard to understand? Is obscure in its meaning? Of course the answer is no. I don’t believe it can be misunderstood except when people act together to cloud the meaning. What does the verse say? Repent and be baptized unto or for the remission of sins. This is consistent with every other verse we find referring to the purpose of baptism. Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-6, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Colossians 2:11-12, Galatians 3:26-27 and 1 Peter 3:21 all tell us we call upon the name of the Lord in baptism and that baptism puts us into Christ, into his body, where his blood washes our sins away. In short, as Brother Guy N. Woods in summary once said, "baptism is the consummating act of salvation that puts into Christ and saves us.’

Indeed, the act of baptism is essential as illustrated numerous times in the New Testament, but there are many people who have very sincerely submitted to immersion for a reason other that what God has told us to. There are those who think they need to be baptized as the first act after salvation. Some are baptized to become part of some denomination. There may be some that are baptized just because a relative wanted them to get it done. There can be many reasons why one submits to baptism other that the one God tells us. Are such individuals scripturally baptized? Let’s consider that very seriously, in all humility.

We have already seen that in Acts 19 there were individuals who had conformed to the right act, immersion, but their understanding of the purpose of the act was not correct and they were subsequently baptized into Christ. If one does not have to understand the purpose then we would have to conclude that everyone who has submerged themselves under water at any time has been baptized properly. That would make for a lot of converts at the swimming pools during the summer. It must be understood that there is nothing inherent in the water. Baptism is not like washing the dirt from the body. If we take water and wash dirt from us, it makes little difference if we understand it, the power of water will remove it from our skin.

Another illustration would be that of taking medicine. You and I do not have to understand why the reason why a particular drug will heal us. The ingredients have inherent medicinal properties. This is not the case with the waters of baptism. In baptism we make our appeal to God. This is why Paul was in instructed in Acts 22:16 to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.". Consider 1 Peter 3:21 "²¹which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The word interrogation means appeal. How can we appeal to God if we don’t know the purpose for which we are calling (or appealing) on His name?

The passage in Colossians 2:11-12 tells us "¹¹in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; ¹²having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead". In this passage we are told that in baptism we were raised with him through faith in the working of God. That entails faith in the working of God, which was the circumcision of Christ that He performed on us in baptism (the removal of our sins, Acts 2:38). We have to have faith that God is working something. That requires knowledge of what God is doing, does it not? All of these passages (including Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19) require belief. This of course excludes non-believers and babies. That is not just belief in God or Christ, but the gospel of Jesus Christ, all of it, not just part.

To review what one needs to know about baptism, we need to go back to Acts 2:38, where God gives us the purpose of baptism. It is unto the remission of sins; that is the objective. When we are baptized we put our faith in the blood of Christ, not the water. Hence we appeal to God to forgive our sins by that blood, because it is in baptism that the sinner meets the blood that was shed in Christ’s death. Baptism puts us into Christ, where the location of all spiritual blessings reside (Ephesians 1:3, 7). How can someone be baptized with the remission of sins as a goal, if he believes that they are already been remitted without baptism. How could one call upon the Lord to save him, if he thinks he is already saved? Or how could one have faith in the working of the Lord, it he thinks they operation has already occurred? The biblical view of baptism is not some empty ritual, it is part and parcel of the new birth (John 3:5).

When one really studies the word of God, I don’t think that we can avoid the conclusion that to be obedient and pleasing to God, we need to do what God said to do, in the way he said do it, and for the reasons he gave us. Anything else is a substitution of the human will for the divine. Baptism is no different. We must conform to the act, which is immersion. We must do so in order that our sins would be remitted. Anything else is not submission, it is rebellion. Let’s examine our hearts and ensure that our calling and election is really sure. If you are here today and have not obeyed the gospel we beg of you not to delay one moment longer. Won’t you come to Christ. You need to believe in him as the Son of the Living God (John 2:16), repent of your sins (Acts 17:30, Acts 2:28), confess his sweet name (Romans 10:10) & then be buried with him in baptism unto the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16). And now why tarrist thou?