Dr. Jack Lup, PhD
March 18, 2021
If there is a subject guaranteed to cause controversy among Christians, it is the subject of Baptism. This topic has been an important among those identifying with the Restoration Movement. While we have said much about baptism through our history, and often at the cost of neglecting other important subjects by some, it is not fair to conclude it is the only biblical subject Restorationists are interested in. The main reason we have stressed baptism is because others have neglected it and/or have diminished its significance. Baptism is not a topic we invented. We have addressed it frequently because it is an important teaching in the New Testament. For this reason alone, Christians should discuss it and come to an sound understanding. It was, after all, Jesus who commanded his disciples to baptize.[1] Before discussing the meaning of baptism, we look to some basics.
The word comes from the Greek verb baptizo (βαπτίζω) which means “to immerse.” The examples in the New Testament make it clear that it is total immersion of the body in water. (After believing the message of Christ, baptism was the next response to the Gospel. Total immersion is appropriate because when one becomes a Christian it is the total person who is given to Christ, not just “the soul.” The whole person, spirit and body, is united to Christ.[2] We are called to follow Christ in this life, which is done in the body given to us by God. Our bodies are presented as a “living sacrifice” and is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.[3] In the body we resist the sinful desires of the flesh, suffer with Christ in this world, and are to be faithful in the body until the time of death.[4]
In baptism we receive the inner circumcision of the heart.[5] The act of Baptism reminds us that the old, sinful nature, inherited from our unity with Adam, has come to an end in Christ. In this act we are joined in the Spirit with Christ who was put to death in the body, was buried in a tomb, and who was raised from the dead becoming the Forerunner of the new order of man. Baptism not only “looks back” to Christ but also looks “forward” to the day of redemption of our physically renewed bodies at Christ’s return. Prophetically it is a sign that our bodies also will be raised up on the day of the great resurrection never to experience death again, just as Christ’s glorified body.
We do not believe that the mere act of being submerged in water is all that is essential in constituting baptism.[6] The first precondition that makes this immersion in the name of Christ effective is faith. Jesus said, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.”[7] That is, faith is the primary and necessary condition to Christian Baptism. One must first have trust in the Person and work of Christ and then be baptized. Throughout the New Testament Scriptures people first believed and this faith led them call on the name of the Lord in baptism.[8] The charge of “water regenerations” against Restorationists is baseless because we do not baptize infants nor believe one is born again apart from faith in the Gospel. The precondition of faith nullifies the idea of “infant baptism” since a baby is incapable of believing. [9] For this reason, one cannot find one example of infant baptism in the New Testament.[10]
The second precondition is a repentant heart. The emphasis on repentance in connection with baptism is first established in the ministry of John the Baptizer. John called the Jews to repent of their sins in preparation of the coming Lamb of God and the Judgment to follow. He strongly denounced those among the Jewish leadership who desired to be immersed because everyone one else was doing it.[11] His expectation was that the candidate was ready to produce the “fruit” of righteousness. This expectation to produce righteous fruit is carried over in the Apostles’ teaching.[12]
Why should one be baptized? It is here where the greatest misunderstanding of baptism arises. The plain answer from the Scriptures is that in baptism we receive the “forgiveness of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Ax.2:38). In baptism the convert’s sins are “washed away” (Ax.22:16). In baptism Jew and Gentile, slave and free, men and women are “united with Christ”, “raised up with Christ”, “clothed with Christ,” “made alive”, “seated in the heavenly realms.”[13] This teaching has caused those who seek to follow the Apostolic teaching alone to be alienated from Protestants and Evangelicals who unfortunately and mistakenly associate baptism for the remission of sins as “works salvation.” Charges of “Romanism” and “worse than a cult” have been leveled against the faithful. What is forgotten among those of the Protestant tradition is that remission of sins had been associated with baptism 1500 years before Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.[14] When baptism is administered in response to faith in Christ, there is no works salvation involved in the act of baptism.[15]
Also associated with the forgiveness of sins is the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” That is, at baptism we receive the promised Holy Spirit who is the seal of our redemption for the age to come.[16] It is the presence of the Spirit which assures us that we are children of God and is the guarantor of our salvation. A proper response to New Covenant baptism would eliminate the second guessing that many “faith only” believers have concerning the time of their salvation. The results are assurance, joy, and hope in the gratitude of thanksgiving because of what God has done for us at baptism. How is it possible that these blessings are connected with baptism? The simple answer is that Jesus taught it and His apostles delivered and practiced it. This is not “Christian Church dogma” but is explicitly taught in the Apostolic Scriptures.
A word on when it should be administered. Baptism can and should be administered anywhere there is sufficient water, and should be performed immediately after a profession of faith in Christ. When one is immersed into Christ, he or she is responding to the word of God in faithful obedience.[17] They acknowledge that they are dead in their sins and desire to be born anew. It is the responsibility of the Christian who administers baptism to see it is performed right away and not to wait for a convenient time, as many as are in the habit of doing.
In spite of the clear examples and explicit instructions from the Apostles, there are many who continue to object. Some argue that baptism is “Spirit baptism.” However, there is no support for a “spirit baptism” apart from immersion in water. While the reception of the Spirit results from immersion, this does not negate immersion in water.[18] There is “one baptism” for believers and this includes immersion in water.[19] Another objection, in reference to Acts 2:38, is the argument from the Greek word eis: “for the remission sins” we are told means “because of the remission of sins.”[20] There is, however, no support for such a use in either the Greek New Testament or the Septuagint. Such a reading could only result from a theological bias.[21] The word means for or into the realm of.
Lastly, the act of water baptism is rich in symbolism and is an appropriate action in light of what God has done throughout Bible history. Water symbolizes separation (sanctification) and purification. The heavens and earth were separated by water, the old sinful world was separated from the new world in Noah’s day, the water of the Red Sea separated God’s people from the Egyptian soldiers destroying their enemies in the sea, the Israelites passed through the water of the Jordan to enter into the Promised land, priests were to be purified in the laver before their service in the Temple, Naaman was immersed seven times in the Jordan to be purified, John the Baptizer prepared Israel for the coming of the Christ.
Water is a symbol of separation but also of life and the presence of the Holy Spirit, so it is appropriate that God uses it for the New Birth in Christ. The water and Spirit were present in the creation of physical life, the promise of the Holy Spirit to be “poured out” like water upon people of Israel, the presence of the Spirit and Water bring life to a parched world of sin and destruction, Jesus used “living water” to identify the inward presence of the Holy Spirit after his glorification.[22]
We recognize that we are at variance with nearly all traditional professions of Christianity, but we believe that an honest and open evaluation of the Scriptures will lead all to the same conclusion.[23] The point of our interpretation is not to condemn, but only to advance the word of God in our lives. Nearly every Christian throughout history has been “baptized” in some fashion. Wholesale condemnation on those who in the past who have not had this understanding or have not practiced New Covenant baptism is not necessary, for we do not called to judge the dead. This, however, does not diminish our resolve to teach and practice the truth today about New Covenant baptism. For the living, the only solid assurance that their baptism is effective is to compare what they have been taught with the Word of God. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”[24]
[3] Rom.12:1; I Cor.6:15, 19-20.
[4] Rom.12:1 – Paul’s statement he must be understood as a concluding statement based on, in part, his discussion in chapter six.
[5] Col.2: 11-12.
[6] This is one reason for not translating baptism simply “immersion.” It is certainly immersion in water, but it is more than immersion in water.
[7] Mark 16:16.
[8] Acts 8:36; 9:18; 10: 47, 48; 16: 15; 16: 33; 18:8; 22:16, etc.
[9] Infant baptism arose from a false teaching, inherited from Greek philosophical thought, which maintained that infants were “born in sin,” the doctrine of original sin. Sin, however, is not a genetic problem but is a result of a violation of the Law or Will of God. What is inherited from Adam is not guilt, but the legal condemnation of (physical) death (Rom.5: 12f)
[10] The only passage used by paedobaptists to justify infant baptism is the reference to the “household” in Acts 16: 31. This argument fails on verse 33 which indicates that his household “believed.”
[11] Mat.3:7:f; Lk.3:7f
[12] Rom.6:1f.
[13] Rom.6:5; Gal.3:28; Col.2:12; 3:1.
[14] However, in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy baptism was wrongly applied to infants.
[15] Peter makes what appears to be a bold statement when he declares that “baptism now saves you.” I Pet.3:21.
[16] The “Gift of the Holy Spirit” could mean 1. the Holy Spirit Himself who is the gift, or 2. the gift which is from the Holy Spirit, i.e. the gift of righteousness, and therefore eternal life, salvation, etc. Our position is that both are involved.
[17] The increasing practice among many of our “Christian Churches” of delaying baptism until the end of the month shows a disregard for Biblical teaching. Even the long tradition among many of waiting till Sunday morning to perform baptism is a violation of the urgency found in Scripture. There is no evidence that baptism must be performed before an entire congregation to be effective (cf. Ax.8: 26, 36; 10: 24f; et al ). Baptism is neither for the convenience of a minister nor for a demonstration of an evangelist’s effectiveness. It is for the believer and can be administered at the first opportunity (Ax.16: 33)
[18] Such a position is yet another example of a “Gnostic” influence in Christian theology.
[19] Eph.4:5.
[20] The Greek phrase is εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Act 2:38)
[21] Theological or philosophical assumptions can prohibit the acceptance of the explicit statements of Scripture. For example, if one believes that God unconditionally elects certain people to be saved and others to be lost from the beginning of creation, then the necessity of baptism would logically make little sense. Or if one believes that nothing “physical” can have anything to do with matters of the “spirit,” then it is understandable why baptism would not make any sense. However, if one does not accept these positions, then they are more apt to acknowledge the statements of Scripture.
[23] Only those who raise the question of contemporary “hermeneutics” will object. However, such epistemological questions that arise either out of philosophical skepticism or out of holism are contextually out of place in this discussion. Here the question is limited to the meaning of the text in a clearly circumscribed context.
[24] Rom.3:4.