Brett Hickey

Sausage, bacon and eggs for breakfast sounds like a great way to start a Saturday. Then, after mowing the lawn, you could reward yourself with a catfish lunch. These acts, which we would not think twice about today, would make the Jew under the Old Covenant guilty of four sins. Working on the Sabbath (Saturday) was a sin punishable by death (Exod. 31:15), while bacon, sausage and catfish violated the Old Testament food ordinances (Lev. 11). How could these be all right for God’s people today but sinful back then? There has been a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). Thankfully, these and many more ordinances were “abolished” or “blotted out” when Jesus died on the cross (Eph. 2:14; Col.2:14; KJV unless otherwise noted).

The question arises, though, does the blotting out of some ordinances render all biblical ordinances and commands ineffective? Some have reached this erroneous conclusion and proceeded to alter or accept changes to the New Testament ordinances. There are two approaches one may take to New Testament ordinances: simply leave them as one found them or twist and tweak them to satisfy the cultural preferences of the day. The latter approach is more flexible and more palatable to the public, but the Holy Spirit’s words point to the first approach. The Apostle Paul stresses the importance of upholding the ordinances of Christ and the apostles in 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as (just as—NKJV) I delivered them to you” (KJV).

What did Paul have in mind by “the ordinances?” Some scholars accurately conclude that Paul referred to the body of New Testament teachings, while others consider the term more restrictive. Nevertheless, scholars agree that the word for “ordinances,” even when used in the strictest sense, includes at least the Lord’s Supper and baptism.

Unfortunately, religious confusion abounds today, forcing the truth-seeker to find the proverbial “needle in a haystack.” One such area of confusion is baptism, despite its pivotal place in the Christian system. Human preferences and misunderstanding have produced and sustained changes to this ordinance. The only way to bring resolution from the conflicting ideas about baptism is to scrutinize them in light of God’s Word.

Baptism of Fire

Some people zealously promote the baptism of fire as an ordinance or tradition to be cherished today. The context of Matthew 3:10-12 shows this is incorrect. “Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire…He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” John confirms that we should not promote the baptism of fire when he speaks of those at the judgment day who are “cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:12-15). The baptism of fire should not be promoted because it is a form of punishment.

Triune Immersion

Since baptism is to be “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” some demand that the subject for baptism be dipped or sprinkled three times, one time for each member of the Godhead. But, Romans 6:3-5, presents an obvious problem to this belief. Here, baptism is pictured as a reenactment of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Triune immersion would picture Jesus dying and being resurrected three times, but Jesus died only once, was buried only once and was resurrected only once. Paul confirms that triune baptism is unscriptural in Ephesians 4:5 when he writes that there is only one immersion or baptism.

Wet or Dry?

Other Bible-believing people insist that Holy Spirit baptism is sufficient for salvation and that water baptism is unnecessary. They reference the experience of the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 and Cornelius in Acts 10-11. At first glance, there appears to be some merit to this idea, but a closer look shows these events to be unique cases, designed to fulfill the prophecy of Joel 2:28: “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh.” The prophecy was fulfilled, not in all Jews and all Gentiles of the day but on the apostles who were Jews (Acts 2) and Cornelius’ family and friends who were Gentiles (Acts 10-11).

The Bible clearly teaches that water baptism is demanded for the believer. The New Testament evidence is decisive. When taken at face value, Jesus’ exchange with Nicodemus is unmistakable: “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

William Wall in The History of Infant Baptism notes how widely this view has been held through the ages:

There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism. And if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, any more than born of wood. (v.1, 92)

All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Saviour, John 3:5…of baptism.…I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives another interpretation, which he confesses to be new. (v.I, 443)

Phillip Schaff adds,

[I]t seems impossible to disconnect water from baptism. Calvin’s interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the Roman Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way (Lange’s Commentary, v. III, footnote 127)

The necessity of water baptism is not based on John 3:5 alone. Consider the conversion of the Ethiopian in Acts 8. Luke records, they came to a certain water: ‘See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?’… they went down into the water both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of water…” The Holy Spirit floods this account with water!

If the element of baptism was other than water, Peter never knew it. Concerning Cornelius and his company, Peter asked his Jewish brethren in Acts 10:47, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” Peter again connected water to baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21—

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: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Sprinkling

Sprinkling is commonly offered as an alternative to immersion. The practice of sprinkling in place of immersion has existed for a long time, but it does not go back to the days of the apostles. In the context of salvation, the Holy Spirit repeatedly bypassed the Greek word rhantizo (which is translated “sprinkling” in other Scriptures) in favor of baptize (“to dip, plunge or immerse”).

Immersion is the only mode that corresponds to all the biblical details. Of the two alternatives, only immersion requires the “much water” demanded by John 3:23 and the burial pictured according to Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. Nicodemus’ interview with Jesus further isolates immersion as the initial practice. Jesus said that a man must be “born of water.” The word “born” literally means “to bring forth,” but there can be no “bringing forth” in sprinkling.

Complete confirmation of immersion being the mode of baptism is found in the earliest religious writings since the first century. Barnabus, Irenaeus, the anonymous author of the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr and Tertullian all lived before A.D. 200 and mention immersion as the apostolic tradition. In addition to a score of encyclopedias and dozens of historians that verify their testimony, prominent denominational scholars that practiced sprinkling concede that the original practice was immersion: Roman Catholic Alzog; Anglican Bingham; Lutherans Neander and Mosheim; Congregationalist Fisher; and Presbyterian Schaff. While these scholars still defended sprinkling, their honest admissions, combined with the scriptural requirement to keep the ordinance just as it was delivered, are sufficient to reject sprinkling.

Is Baptism Optional?

Some have ridiculed the idea that baptism is essential to salvation. They suggest baptism is merely an option that pictures the salvation already attained and that qualifies the subject for denominational membership. No departure from the biblical ordinance is refuted more clearly and more often than is this one. In Acts 2:38-47, we find that when 3,000 souls were added to the church by baptism and they received forgiveness and were added to the church simultaneously.

A host of passages point with unanimity to the purpose of the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5.

 

To put on Christ	For as many of you as were   baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal.3:27).
To enter the kingdom of God	…unless one is born of water   and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God   (Jn. 3:5).
To be saved	He who believes and is   baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16).He saved us, through the   washing of regeneration (Tit. 3:5).(Baptism) now saves us (I   Pet.3:21).
For remission of sins	Repent, and…be baptized… for   the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
To wash away sins	Arise, and be baptized, and   wash away your sins (Acts 22:16).

With the clear, continuous message of the Holy Spirit, how could one be satisfied with any other baptism? If one were to preserve the one baptism taught in the Scriptures, he must insist that no alternatives be accepted. One must submit to a single immersion in water for the forgiveness of his sins.

What If I Was Baptized Differently?

Many people are pleased to discover the truth regarding baptism even though it proves that their baptism was unscriptural. Unfortunately, many of these honest people believe it is sufficient to educate others about true baptism without themselves ever being baptized according to the tradition of Jesus and the apostles. They believe that since they did all they knew to do at the time of their baptism, they fulfilled the command to be baptized. Are they correct?

The Apostle Paul found a group of people in this situation in Acts 19:1-6. They did all they knew to do, but they knew only of John’s baptism. When they realized the baptism they received did not satisfy the teachings on baptism by the apostles, they gladly submitted to Paul’s teaching and were scripturally baptized. Why should it be any different today? Make your calling and election sure!

 

Click here to download a PDF of this article