On November 9, 2010, I received an e-mail titled: “Why Christians Should Not Be Baptized in Water.” No introduction was included—just 8 reasons and a signature from someone whom I will call Clark (not his real name). My first thought was, “Well, no, you wouldn’t baptize Christians in water—they are already saved. You would baptize sinners in water so that they could become Christians.” But I went ahead and considered the reasons and replied to them. After thanking Clark for writing, I wrote: “Let me provide you some things to think about that you may have overlooked.” Below are his eight points in brown and in quotation marks, followed by my responses.
1. “Jesus never told anyone to do it.” Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). The baptism of the Great Commission is baptism in water, as Acts 8:36-39 demonstrates.
2. “Jesus never baptized anyone in water (John 4:2).” Jesus did baptize people in water (John 4:1). Jesus is said to do it because it was done by His authority. Verse 2 simply explains He did not do it personally. Nevertheless He authorized it and is therefore said to do it in verse 1.
3. “The Baptism of Christ is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11).” John made the promise that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, which He did (Acts 2:1-4). This promise obviously did not do away with water baptism either before or after the crucifixion (John 4:1-2; Acts 8:36-39).
4. “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).” Yes, there is. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was one of promise, having nothing to do with salvation. It was fulfilled on Pentecost. Baptism in water is commanded; it remains in effect (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 10:44-47).
5. “Water baptism was not to be continued (John 3:30).” John 3:30 does not mention water baptism. If you believe it was to be discontinued, then when? It was still being used by the time of Acts 8:36-39 and in the time of Peter (1 Peter 3:20-21). So when would it cease?
6. “John’s baptism in water was replaced by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).” No. The Day of Pentecost fulfilled the promise. Baptism in water was still being used by Peter the apostle more than 30 years later (1 Peter 3:20-21). Nothing in Acts 1:5 says anything about water baptism being replaced.
7. “The nature of the new covenant is spiritual, not ceremonial (Colossians 2:16).” The new covenant is spiritual, but because we are human beings, physical things are still used. We use physical bread and physical fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper. Literal water is used in baptism, but it is a spiritual process (God’s working, in fact) whereby one’s sins are removed (Col. 2:12).
8. “It shows a lack of faith in what Jesus vicariously did for us (Matthew 3:13-17).” How can it show a lack of faith to do what Jesus said to do (Luke 6:46)? How can it show a lack of faith to be buried with Jesus in baptism (Rom. 6:3-7)? Being baptized in water in order to have one’s sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) demonstrates faith and trust in Him—that He will do what He said, and we will be cleansed. Jesus was not baptized in our place. If He was, why did He, then, baptize others (John 4:1-2)? What He did was DIE in our place, paying the penalty that we owed. Should we not, then, obey Him in all things (Matt. 7:21-23)?
I pray that you will consider this response carefully.
What did Clark do with this information?
One might think that he would have explained his position further on each point if he continued to disagree—or that he might admit he had drawn a wrong conclusion. Unfortunately, he seldom did either.
Question #1
Jesus clearly said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16). Thus, He did teach people to be baptized. Clark’s answer to this verse was to attempt to annihilate it. He wrote: “Mark 16:16 should not be considered valid Scripture as the most reliable manuscripts of Mark end at verse 8. Christ never uttered those words.” I asked him if he got this statement from the NIV, which erroneously states this unexplained fabrication. Clark did not say where he came up with this conclusion, but much more transpired on this point, which may be considered later.
Eventually, I reminded him that—not only did Jesus teach water baptism in Mark 16:16, He was also teaching it in John 4:1: “…Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” They would scarcely have been baptized if the Lord had not taught them to do so. He made no other comment regarding this point.
Question #2
Although he reaffirmed his initial statement later, that Jesus never personally baptized anyone (John 4:2), Clark never commented on John 4:1. The fact that the Lord never personally baptized anyone was probably intentional—to keep someone from saying, “Jesus baptized me personally.” But since He authorized people to be baptized in water, verse one says that Jesus baptized them.
Questions #3 and #4
John did promise that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, but that was a promise—which was later fulfilled. It did not, however, put an end to water baptism at the time of its fulfillment—or afterward. Clark made no comment on the fact that Holy Spirit baptism had nothing to do with salvation.
Question #5
This is the one in which Clark claimed: “Water baptism was not to be continued (John 3:30).” In the first place, the verse has nothing to say about water baptism. It is a record of John saying that Jesus must increase, but he must decrease. John said this in response to what his disciples said in what appears to be a lament about Jesus. They told John that Jesus “is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” (John 3:26). Well, there is Jesus baptizing again. Is it possible that they were being baptized because Jesus taught them to do so?
I asked Clark when water baptism ceased. He did not reply. He did not comment on Acts 8:36-39, in which the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him (Acts 8:39). I pressed Clark on this passage and Acts 10:44-47 several times, but he refused to comment, which shows a lack of honesty. When someone cites a passage of Scripture in its context that disproves another’s claim, he must either answer intelligently or give it up. Eventually, Clark chose a third option. He did not comment directly on the passages but instead wrote:
It is a serious mistake to build a doctrine on the practice of the early church. Acts 15:28-29 clearly shows that the practice of water baptism was not required for Gentile believers. The early church was still growing spiritually and doctrinally. Of course, many false teachers had reintroduced a lot of Jewish ceremonies such as water baptism.
Who can believe statements as these—that we cannot follow the practice of the early church and that false teachers had introduced “Jewish ceremonies”? What really makes all of this ironic is that Clark has begun to make several ad hominem attacks on me, such as taking things out of context, practicing eisegesis (reading things into the text), and following what my “denomination” teaches—none of which was true; the reader can judge for himself which of us is guilty of those charges. I wrote back the following.
You are on the right track with Acts 15, but you misapply the results to baptism. The question being discussed was, “What was there from the Law of Moses that Gentiles needed to practice. Read Acts 15:1 and 5. Certain men were commanding Gentile Christians that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in addition to the Law of Christ. Clark, we are in agreement that we are not under the Law of Moses but rather the spiritual covenant of Jesus. The Law had been done away with, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So what were the apostles to do about those requiring circumcision and the Law of Moses? They discussed it and clearly decided that only four things of the entire Law were required, which are cited in Acts 15:28-29, as you pointed out.
The correct application of this decision is that God did not reinforce the dietary laws bound upon the Jews. He did not require the Gentiles to practice circumcision. He also did not require them to keep the Sabbath day. Perhaps we can agree on these applications.
Baptism, however, was never a part of the Law of Moses. John the Baptizer introduced it as part of the gospel, which was taught in advance of and in anticipation of the New Testament system. Before any law takes effect (for example, changing the speed limit to 55), it is announced and explained in advance. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men? It was from heaven. He was authorized by God to preach this doctrine prior to the Law of Moses being done away, but it was never part of the Law of Moses. Notice what Mark 1:1 says: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Three verses later (Mark 1:4-5) John is preaching the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It is not the Law of Moses he is preaching but the gospel.
Baptism in water for the remission of sins remains part of the gospel. I know you don’t think so, but ask yourself why you cannot explain Acts 8:36-39 and Acts 10:47? Then answer these questions: 1) Was Philip the evangelist a false teacher for telling the eunuch to be baptized in water (Acts 8:36-39)? 2) Was Peter the apostle, the same one who spoke in Acts 15, a false teacher when he said that no one could forbid water to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:47)?
As was typical, Clark let a few e-mails pass by before finally commenting. Finally he decided to offer a brief comment:
The Jews had added their own ceremonies and traditions, one of which was water baptism. All John the Baptist did was to adapt an old Jewish ceremony.
What? No, your eyes do not deceive you. This was his claim. I responded thus:
This statement is not honest, and you know it. I cited Jesus asking the question from Matthew 21:25: Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men? It was, in fact, authorized by God. Your assertion that it is an old Jewish tradition is mere flummery and without any Scriptural merit whatsoever.
But he would not be moved away from such an absurd allegation. He sent the following:
There is no question that the Christian ceremony of water baptism originated with the old baptisms in Judaism. Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible said: “Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish forms….” Since early Christianity was originally the Messianic Judaism of Jesus’ day, it is without question that baptism in the New Testament was originally Jewish. Further evidence comes from Scholars like William Lasor and David Daube who tell us of the early church’s practice of baptism was after the custom of the Jews.
I immediately replied.
Well, those are nice theories without any evidence, as usual. Where in the Bible do you see baptism as an old Jewish practice? Can you find even one verse? Didn’t think so. What Tenney and others say may reflect their theology–especially since they did not cite a source.
Furthermore, you continue to duck Jesus’ plain implication that John’s baptism was from God (Matt. 21:25), which is a dishonest approach, since I have now mentioned it several times. Let’s cut to the chase here. Will you sign the following propositions for a debate (either oral or written)?
I, Clark, Gospel Evangelist, know that God did not authorize John the Baptizer to baptize in water.
I, Clark, Gospel Evangelist, know that the only authority for water baptism, which John practiced, was from an old Jewish tradition.
Everyone will recognize the copout that Clark came back with.
It is obvious that you have not taken the time to study this issue in any depth. The Bible is very clear on this issue, but you remain steadfast to your denominational view.
This tactic is always what a false teacher does. He cannot defend his views; so he resorts to name calling. The idea that John’s baptism was from an old Jewish tradition is ludicrous. Jesus asked where the baptism of John was from. Why did His enemies not answer: “He got it from an old Jewish tradition”? If John had borrowed it from the Jews, they surely would have known it! God sent John to baptize with water (John 1:33).
Question #6
Clark never specified a time when water baptism was done away.
Question #7
He amplified the spiritual emphasis of Christianity, which no one disagrees with, but he could never prove that water is not involved in baptism or that there are no physical elements in the Lord’s Supper.
Question #8
He never responded at all to the fact that Jesus was not baptized in our place—but that He was put to death in our place.
It is truly amazing to observe the extremes some people will go to in order to uphold man-made doctrines. To say that the church in the first century is not something for us to follow when they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, is silly. What else should serve as a safe guide, then? The apostles taught the church the truth and corrected them when they fell short or were considering false teachings. Did the apostles (who actually were baptized in the Holy Spirit) fail? Did the Spirit fail, also? Let us steadfastly abide in the truth.