In the early 16th century, William Tyndale made it his purpose to translate the New Testament Scriptures, written in Greek, into the language of his people, the language of England. Getting word of this, “Edward Lee, the king’s almoner [giver of alms] and future archbishop of York…” heard about it. He reported back to the king, “I am certainly informed that an Englishman, your subject, at the solicitation and insistence of Luther [Martin Luther], with whom he is, hath translated the New Testament into English, and within a few days intendeth to arrive with the same imprinted in England. I need not advertise you grace what infection and danger and English Bible represented” (God’s Bestseller by Brian Moynahan, 2002, p. 76).
Most people today have no understanding about the treachery perpetrated against those who loved the Lord, His Scripture, and their desire to get His message into the hand of the common people. William Tyndale understood this and put his life in great danger to accomplish this task. Finally, the religious authorities (the Roman Catholic Church and government officials in support of the church) caught up with Tyndale, and at the age of 42 he was executed.
Think about that for a moment.
About the time of our great Civil War, President Lincoln once said concerning the Bible, “In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it” (https://www.thetrumpet.com/21110-lincoln-and-the-bible).
What is that you have? A Bible? We have enjoyed a great thanksgiving holiday this week, and I am sure you expressed your gratitude toward the Lord for all the blessings you and your family have enjoyed in life, even if that has not been much. Have you thanked Him that others before us have gone to great lengths to give us, in the language of the common man, the Scriptures wherein we can read and learn more of the holy will of the Almighty?
Since you have the Bible in hand, revere, read, and study it because in it pertains the mind of God, and His wrath to those who pay not any attention. Thanksgiving is a time when people reflect upon their blessing; this is the way it ought to be. Be sure to express your gratefulness to the Lord because of “what you have in your hand”, that is, a Bible. It was Paul who wrote, “… how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3-5).
We are most fortunate to have a Bible, and we would be wise to read it and heed it. “Thank you, Lord, for Your holy Word, for ‘Thy word have I laid up in my heart, That I might not sin against thee’ (Psalm 119:11, ASV).”
It’s Saturday evening, when the mother of the house says to the children, “We need to get to bed because we have church tomorrow.” “Do I have to go?” Suzy says aloud. Younger Mike, boldly says, “It’s boring!” Finally, Beth, a teenager, says, “I don’t want to go. None of my friends are there.”
Something of a common refrain from children; these are not words only from our youth today, but they were heard a generation ago also. I suspect that 50 to 55 years ago they were saying the same things. Rather than fight with the kids, the mother of the house says, “What’s the use? If I make the children go, then they may grow up not liking the Lord and going to church. I certainly don’t want that. Maybe it’s best if they learn of such things on their own.” not realizing how shallow a sentiment this truly is. Not only is this sentiment lacking substance, but it’s a reflection of the heart in the one who said it. In other words, the mother of the house has not the conviction of heart to make her children do that which is right in the Lord’s eyes.
The common, and proper, reply to this way of thinking is associated with what parents do (did) with their children in matters of personal hygiene. I remember when I was a little boy and was told I had to take a bath, and all I could do was groan. I was compelled because of the value associated with being clean. When children groan because of bathing, brushing their teeth, etc., they may complain to high heaven about it, but as they grow older the value of that which was compelled upon was soon realized and roots sunk deep.
What if one of our parents said to his child, “Okay, Junior, you don’t have to do that, lest you grow up hating the importance of personal hygiene.” If there is a parent guilty of this, that parent could be properly called a bad parent. On the other hand, because the parent didn’t give ground, the value the child didn’t see early on was realized later and continued as the youthful years turned into adult years. This is the point: it’s all a matter of what is valued. When parents don’t value the Lord for themselves, one can be sure this will pass along to the children. It’s a rare case that it does not. Thus, whatever can be said about the children, be sure to look at the parenting applied. Parents justify themselves, to be sure, and perhaps there is much warrant in their justification (was the prophet Samuel a bad parent?). On the other hand, remember the saying, “wisdom is justified by her children” – do you know its meaning? The children are the product of what they are taught and what they observe in their parents. Thus, the apples do not fall far from the tree. Children exhibit the wisdom of their parents; they follow the same thing their parents valued. Let us all do what we can to exhibit the wisdom of the Lord.
The election is over. On Wednesday morning when you learned of the results, were you encouraged or discouraged? We live in a country that has squandered its traditions associated with community and the Lord to the point we wonder if there is any further downward spiral to which we can or will descend. Yes, we can go much further, and on track toward that we are heading.
The godly man of Psalm 1, however, discouraged though he may be, takes his encouragement in the Lord’s way, and we need to do the same thing. Last week we considered Psalm 1:1-3. Let us be reminded of those 3 verses before we consider the remainder of the Psalm. The English Standard Version (ESV) reads, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.”
Thus, the godly man is planted by the water of life (i.e., the Lord) and his nourishment makes him strong as the years unfold. His strength is not found in those things of the world, however, but in those things associated with the Lord. This can’t be said about the ungodly man. Who is the ungodly man? First, he is one who chooses not to hear the Lord and obey His will. Rather, he would prefer to walk with those who have little to no interest in the Lord. His religion is of this world, as in a secular political party (for instance). He has nothing for which to look forward but those things of this world. When he dies, so does his hope. “The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away” (1:4, KJV).
Second, the ungodly man is feigning a religious covering, but inside he is full of emptiness, he has no substance, but is chaff that is blown away at the time when he least expects it. As he persuaded himself that in his good conscience he is able to stand in the judgment when it come, when it comes, he is stunned to hear, then see, he has been wrong the whole time. “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way – if he would have taken time to know the Lord. but he didn’t; he feigned a religious spirit; when judgment came, he had no anchor for his soul. Third, while it may be that you have a bit of discouragement when thinking about the recent election, be reminded the Lord is still in heaven and He is still the King on His Throne. Whatever happens, the Lord reigns! “For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.”
In each family there is a male (husband) and female (wife); when there are children, there is a mother and father. In that family, the Lord has set forth His structure that makes that family work successfully as a unit. The father is the head of his family, while the mother shapes the world with the raising of the children. When this family unit is altered to something other than the Lord’s structure, dysfunction begins to occur.
In the remainder of this bulletin article, I want to focus attention on how the male / husband / father should lead. We will consider Psalm 1:1-3 as our point of reference.
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful (Psalm 1:1, KJV). By the Lord, the godly man is blessed, because a godly man has no interest in taking the counsel of those who are wicked and live life according to a so-called wisdom that has origin in man. This is important to remember because we live in a world that throws around counsel like snow flies in the winter. Sometimes the snow sticks to the ground!
Not only will the godly man have no interest in counsel that belongs to this world, but he will have his delight in something greater than this world. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night (1:2). Think about what is being said here. The godly man meditates, that is, he spends time understanding the Lord’s way and path for his life. Paul wrote in Romans 8:28, And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. What is that which “work together for good”? This pertains to one’s salvation, as v. 29 illustrates; it does have reference to something a person experiences in life that might be interpreted as “good.”
As the man is the head of the family, where he goes, the family goes. Who should be leading the man of the house, but the Lord! Choosing this approach to life, the godly man is compared to that which has nourishment. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper (1:3). Reflect on how drought can affect our surroundings. With the summer months the temperature rises, the rain is little, the grass turns brown, the crop in the field weathers the lack of rain for a little while, but it, too, begins to wither; the cattle have less food, prices rise, on and on. If one drifts away from the Lord, then drought sets in, nourishment is lacking, and the foliage of the tree begins to wither.
The godly man makes a powerful impression on his family. Sadly, the ungodly man does as well. It’s a challenge to be the kind of people we are called upon to be, but, as I speak to the men, we are to be godly men taught by the Lord so we can lead our families. How well are you doing?
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name,’” are the words that came to the apostle Paul when he converted. (Acts 22:16, UASV) Does this show that the sins of Paul were forgiven by being baptized? Did baptism by immersion wash away Paul’s sins? Did Peter in Acts 2:38 declare that baptism was necessary for salvation? Did Peter not say, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you …” (1 Peter 3:21) More on these and other verses below after an overview of baptism by L. Paige Patterson.
BAPTISM: The Christian rite of initiation practiced by almost all who profess to embrace the Christian faith. In the NT era, persons professing Christ were immersed in water as a public confession of their faith in Jesus, the Savior. This was accomplished in direct obedience to the explicit mandate of the Lord (Matt. 28:16–20).
RT: To begin, notice the word “initiation.” This is a word associated with “installment”, “induction.” If one is initiated into something by baptism, then without baptism one is not in that something, whatever it is, right? So, then, baptism initiates a person into what? According to Romans 6, a person is baptized (initiated) into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, without baptism, one is not identified with the Lord in this context.
A second thing to notice is the word “public”; it is not a New Testament word in this context. It is a word that others apply to move the command to be obeyed to something less than a necessity. In other words, one is saved in a private setting (via the “sinner’s prayer”), but before the public, one must submit himself to the Lord in baptism. Two things. First, what if the public is not available? What if there is only the candidate and the one baptizing? Second, since circumcision was an initiation, was the circumcision of the foreskin of the flesh a public matter (it, too, was an initiation)?
Jewish Background Among Palestinian Jews of the first century, a form of ritual cleansing was practiced, one which undoubtedly constituted the foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The unearthing of hundreds of mikvaot (ritual cleansing pools) in various locations from the Temple Mount to the fortress of Masada and the community of Qumran testify to the widespread practice of both proselyte baptism and ritual cleansings. The existence of deep pools accessed by stairs provides sufficient evidence that the Jewish practice employed a form of self-baptism or self-immersion. A typical use of the mikveh would find a Gentile who had embraced Judaism and accepted circumcision walking into the mikveh, citing the shema, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4), and then immersing himself in the pool.
RT: The only significant point in these remarks is the word “cleansing.” Cleansing was associated with this washing, or baptism.
John’s Baptism Consequently, when John the Baptist began baptizing in the Jordan River, the practice of baptism per se was hardly shocking to the Jews. The introduction of an administrator who immersed others was John’s novel addition. The church maintained this development in its post-resurrection worship and elevated it to prominence as the first public act of identification with Christ. John insisted that those who sought baptism at his hand give testimony to a radically changed life, evidenced by repentance. Those who thus acquiesced formed a purified community awaiting the advent of Messiah. That Jesus of Nazareth was among those who sought John’s baptism puzzled the church through the ages and seems to have mystified John at the time (Matt. 3:14). John’s protest suggests that he observed no need for repentance in Jesus. He relented and immersed Jesus in response to the Lord’s assurance that in so doing this act would “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). In addition to identifying with the ministry of John, the act declared the nature of the Messiah’s mission. He would be a crucified, buried, and resurrected Messiah. Additionally, the event provided one of the most important declarations of the Trinitarian nature of God with the baptism of the Son, the voice of the Father, and the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16–17).
RT: Again, the word “public” is not a New Testament teaching, neither is it used in Acts 2. It’s likely the word is used by the author of this article because it was in the presence of many people that 3,000 received the words of the apostle and were baptized, thus in public; that, however, is not the same as saying the New Testament teaches it’s a public demonstration. This remark, “John’s protest suggests that he observed no need for repentance in Jesus”says more than is warranted from the text.Why did John hesitate baptizing Jesus, was it because he saw no need for Jesus to have a penitent heart? Perhaps, but it’s more likely that John had a clear indication of who Jesus was, that is, John knew Jesus to be the Messiah, having it confirmed after he baptized Jesus; with this understanding, others were baptized with an anticipation of the Messiah coming, John knew who was in his presence.
Baptism in the New Testament The word “baptism” has several uses in the NT. In addition to its usual sense of faith-witness initiation, the Bible speaks of a baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11–12), baptism by/in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29), and even the baptism of the Hebrew people into Moses and the Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). But overwhelmingly the most prominent use of the word refers to the first response of obedience by a new follower of Jesus. The word “baptize” is itself a loanword borrowed from the Greek term baptizo. Few scholars contest that the meaning of the term is “immerse,” and not “to pour” or “to sprinkle.” In classical Greek, the word is used, for example, to describe the sinking of a ship that is, therefore, “immersed” or totally enveloped in water. Five important issues about baptism are: (1) the meaning of the ordinance, (2) the appropriate candidate for baptism, (3) the proper mode of baptism, (4) the right time for baptism, and (5) the correct authority for baptism.
RT – There is no “first response of obedience” enumerated in the New Testament, unless one were to say that hearing the Gospel message was that first response (Acts 8:12; 18:8), then came belief, followed by a penitent heart, as in “believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved…” (cf. Luke 13:3, 5). More than that, salvation is a matter of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism; the first step is in hearing the Gospel message, then responding to it in belief (Acts 18:8; Heb. 11:6,1).
Meaning In its simplest form baptism is a public identification with Jesus the Christ. As such it pictures the death of Jesus for the sins of the world, His subsequent burial, and His triumphant resurrection. There is also a reenactment of the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old man, and a resurrection to walk in newness of life with Christ (Rom. 6:4). There is also an eschatological hint, a prophetic look to the future in baptism. Though we die and are interred in the ground, we shall rise again at the coming of the Lord. There are those who see baptism as a sacrament, bestowing grace or even bringing salvation. In this view baptism effects the removal of original sin in infants and/or secures salvation for the one baptized. Advocates of such a position cite Acts 2:38 and a few other verses as supporting texts. The believers’ church tradition understands baptism to be symbolic of salvation, a public profession of faith, and a witness to the work of salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is appropriated solely by faith based on the grace of God. Baptism, being an act of man, can never cleanse a person of sin or procure God’s forgiveness (Rom. 4:3).
RT: This word “public” is continually used, but one searches in vain for its use in the New Testament, in a baptismal setting. In the New Testament, it is found twice, neither time with baptism (Matt. 1:19; Acts 5:18, ASV). The word “show” (as in “show” forth publicly) is used several times in the New Testament, and not once in connection with baptism. Certainly, in baptism one is identified with Christ, but there is nothing about “public” associated with the command. Can one be saved without identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection? To ask is to answer!
“The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is appropriated solely by faith based on the grace of God. Baptism, being an act of man, can never cleanse a person of sin or procure God’s forgiveness (Rom. 4:3).”The Bible nowhere teaches (1) “solely by faith” and (2) “Baptism, is an act of man…” Consider the word “solely” for a moment. It means “nothing other than” (Webster); if that is so, then repentance is not required, but Jesus said it was (Acts 2:38), neither is confession, as in confessing the name of Jesus, but Jesus said it was (Rom. 10:9-10). Since Peter and Paul spoke by the authority of the Lord, these are the words of Jesus. Regarding baptism as “an act of man” – this is taught nowhere in the New Testament! In fact, it’s a passive action.
Proper Candidate for Baptism Accordingly, the only appropriate candidate for the witness of baptism is someone who has something about which he can bear witness (Acts 2:38; 8:12–13, 36–38; Eph. 4:5). There is no precedent for infant baptism in the NT; in addition, only one who has experienced regeneration can give genuine witness to that experience. Only one sufficiently mature to have recognized, confessed and repented of his sin, and made a conscious commitment of faith in Christ should be baptized (Acts 2:41).
RT: Without explication of the word “regeneration” I can give no comment; overall, this paragraph is fine.
Correct Time for Baptism In certain areas of the world, baptism is delayed, sometimes as much as two years, during which time candidates “prove themselves” and/or are carefully taught, but the NT knows no such practice. Baptism is a public confession of faith, an initiatory ordinance of a new believer desiring to be obedient to Christ (Acts 8:35–38). The accompanying safeguard is a scriptural program of church discipline. Therefore, as soon as one is saved, he should be baptized.
RT: The New Testament does not teach “baptism is a public confession of faith, an initiatory ordinance…” Baptism is an action of faith, similar to one having a change of mind and acknowledging Jesus as Lord, both which are required to be saved, as is baptism.
The Proper Form of Baptism The correct form of baptism is determined by the meaning of the act. While it is true that baptizo means “immerse,” and while it is further the case that Jewish and first-century Christian baptisms were all by immersion, it is the significance of death, burial, and resurrection that determines the form. The new believer is buried in a watery grave and raised up as a symbol of his trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the atonement of sins. Only immersion adequately pictures a burial and a resurrection (Rom. 6:4–6). Immersionist baptistries dating from early Christian churches are common in Europe and the Middle East. Not a few contemporary Roman Catholic churches have even recognized the antiquity of the practice of immersion and have begun constructing immersionist pools. Eastern Orthodoxy has always practiced immersion.
RT: Again, the word “symbol” in relation to baptism is not taught in the New Testament. For sake of discussion – even if it was, without that “symbol” was is not initiated, and neither is one identified with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ – thus necessary!
The Correct Authority for Baptism Who has the authority to administer or perform baptism? Here the Scriptures are not explicit. However, in the NT, wherever people professed Christ and were baptized, they were assimilated into local assemblies of believers. The possible exception to this is the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35–38). Lacking more precise instruction, it seems safe to say that to identify with Christ as the head of the church without also identifying with the church, which is the body of Christ, would be unfathomable. The local church is the proper authority to administer baptism.
Finally, it should be noted that the two ordinances given to the church—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—together tell the story of Christ’s atoning work. In the Supper, the death of Christ is acknowledged and proclaimed, whereas in baptism, His burial and resurrection are depicted. These comprise the only rituals assigned to the church by Jesus. See Baptism with/in the Holy Spirit; Infant Baptism; Ordinances.
RT: The word “ritual” needs to be defined. It is defined as a ceremony according to a religious law (Merriam Webster online). The words “ceremony” and “ritual” are not in the New Testament. Thus, as has been the case to this point, this is a word assignment by man (ceremony, ritual, public) of something not used in conjunction with the points made. This is important to keep in mind! The two words “ceremony” and “ritual” are used to convey something with less substance than such words as faith, repentance.
Following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, baptism was carried out upon Christian converts. From 33 A.D. to 36 A.D., these new Christians were Jews, circumcised Samaritans, and proselyte Jews, the latter being those who were initially non-Jews but had been circumcised as proselytes into the Jewish religion and now were converting to Christianity. Water baptism of new Jews, circumcised Samaritans, and proselyte Jewish believers at Pentecost 33 C.E. symbolized their personal dedication to God through Christ. After 36 A.D., baptism involved uncircumcised non-Jews when the Christian gospel was proclaimed to the Gentiles. Concerning Saul, who became the apostle Paul, the account reads: “and he [Saul/Paul] regained his sight and got up and was baptized.”—Acts 9:18, UASV.
RT: The New Testament does not teach, not even remotely, that baptism was “carried out upon Christian converts.” This is false teaching through and through.
SINS NOT FORGIVEN BY BAPTISM
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name,’” are the words that came to the apostle Paul when he converted. (Acts 22:16, UASV) Does this show that the sins of Paul were forgiven by being baptized? Did baptism by immersion wash away Paul’s sins? New Testament scholar John B. Polhill writes, “The scene with Ananias concludes with v. 16, which relates Paul’s baptism (cf. 9:18b). The phrase translated ‘what are you waiting for?’ is a common Greek idiom and implies that it was time Paul acted on this commission from the Lord. The first step obviously was to be baptized into the community of believers. “Be baptized and wash your sins away” could be taken as a proof text for baptismal regeneration. The overarching term, however, is ‘calling upon the name of the Lord,’ the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.” Polhill is absolutely correct. Paul was not saying that his sins of Paul were forgiven by being baptized. He was saying that he was commanded to get baptized and that his sins were washed away by his calling upon the name of the Lord (the Father, see 22:14) through Christ Jesus. His calling on his name (“Jehovah”) is evidence of his conversion, that is, his dedication of himself to God, a turning to follow Jesus Christ.
RT: Notice the 2nd question in the above paragraph after the citation of Acts 22:16. As he asked this question, he framed it entirely wrong. Baptism does not wash away sins, only God does. However, according to the passage, God washes away no sins of a penitent believer until he identifies with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection, culminated in baptism. Because he framed it entirely wrong, he adopts a term (baptismal regeneration) that pejoratively skews an accurate understanding of the passage.
Really? Does a “scholar” have to explain away the words that are so easily understood in order to sustain a theology of “faith alone”, a teaching nowhere found in the New Testament? That is exactly what he has done! While there is no dispute of “the overarching term” of calling on the Lord’s name, it does not mean that sins forgiven and not realized in conjunction with baptism.
Charles B. Williams translated the Greek New Testament, and his rendering of Acts 22:16 reads this way: “And now, why are you waiting? Get up and be baptized and wash your sins away by calling on His name.’” He was a known Baptist Greek scholar, and he translates the Greek of Acts 22:16 the same way the 1901 ASV reads, the same way the 1995 NASB reads; add to this the following translations (or versions): NET, Weymouth, English Majority Text Version, Moffatt, and the NKJV. Since they all read the same, it’s clear what the Holy Spirit wants the reader to understand. “Paul, get up! Wait no longer; get yourself baptized, and when you’re baptized (immersed), your sins will be washed away.”
Where is the following taught in the New Testament? “The first step obviously was to be baptized into the community of believers.” This is another plainly false teaching! Baptism is into the Lord, into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3-4). When this occurs, the Lord adds, and not before.
Acts 22:16 is proof text for baptismal regeneration? There is not an ounce of truth in any sentiment that speaks along this line. Certainly, when one calls on the Lord’s name, the one calling on the Lord is calling on Him to be saved; when one hears the Lord and obeys His express will, he is saved. Paul did not misunderstand what Ananias said, he did not stop and turn around and say to Ananias, “Now wait, Ananias, don’t you know that baptism does not wash away sins? Get it right Ananias, lest people misunderstand.”
Jesus, who set the example for Christians to be baptized by immersion, had no sins to forgive. On the other hand, we need to repent of our sins before we can be baptized. At the time of ‘turning to God,’ says Paul, “I proclaimed that they should repent and turn to God, doing deeds worthy of repentance.” (Acts 26:20, UASV) “Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21, UASV) More evidence that immersion symbolizes one’s complete dedication to God, as Christians followed Jesus’ example: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his footsteps.” (1 Pet. 2:21, UASV) Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Matt. 16:24, UASV) Persons are burying their previous life, which is symbolized by water immersion. Now, they are determined to do the Father’s will as Jesus requested. (Matt. 7:21-23) The dedication is also described by Jesus in a parallel account. And he was saying to them all, “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself, and take up his cross day after day and keep following me.”—Luke 9:23, UASV.
These passages referenced in the above paragraph do not give more evidence “that immersion symbolizes one’s complete dedication to God…” This is theology, not biblical teaching. It would be more accurate to this is what faith in the Lord Jesus does.
Some scriptures try to apply to forgiveness of sins with complete immersion, so we will consider them now.
Mark 16:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB): 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
This one is easily displaced because Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original, it was a second century interpolation (addition). Mark ends at 16:8, which is supported by א B 304 syrs copsa (l MS) arm geo (2 MSS) Hesychius Eusebian canons MSSaccording to Eusebius MSSaccording to Jerome MSSaccording to Severus. In short, the traditional longer ending Mark 16:9-20 is not supported by the earliest and best manuscripts: (1) The early church fathers had no knowledge of anything beyond verse eight. (2) Such ancient scholars as Eusebius and Jerome marked them spurious. (3) The style of these verses is utterly different from that of Mark. (4) The vocabulary used in these verses is different from that of Mark. (5) Verse 8 does not transition well with verse 9, jumping from the women disciples to Jesus’ resurrection appearance. Jesus does not need to appear because Mark ended with the announcement that he had. We only want that because the other Gospels give us an appearance. So we expect it. (6) The very content of these verses contradicts the facts and the rest of the Greek New Testament. With textual scholarship, being very well aware of Mark’s abrupt style of writing and abrupt ending to his Gospel does not seem out of place. Eusebius and Jerome, as well as this writer, agree.
RT: That which he thinks is easily displaced is very arrogantly written. It is not the case that scholarship is in unison on this. That some dispute this passage is certain, but there are many who subscribe to its inclusion, some of which are Greek New Testament textual criticism scholars. Apart from this, there is not one thing in the disputed passage that is not taught elsewhere in the New Testament.
I’ll say no more on this and simply reference links below.
The Forgiveness of Your Sins
Acts 2:38 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) – 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Repentance: The (μετανοέω metanoeō and μεταμέλομαι metamelomai) means to repent, to change one’s way, repentance. It means that we change our minds about our sinful actions or conduct, being dissatisfied with that personality trait. We feel regret, contrition, or compunction for what we have done or failed to do. We change our way of life because we have changed our view, way of thinking, mindset, attitude, and disposition regarding our sinful behavior. We have a change of heart and mind, abandoning our former way of thinking, feeling, and acting. The result is our becoming a new self, with new behavior and having a genuine regret over our former ways. No one can testify but our own spirit that we have repented; we may make professions of repentance, and the world may believe we are thoroughly sincere, but our own spirit may tell us that our profession is false. In other words, genuine repentance will bring about results that we know to be true. – Matt. 3:2; 12:41; Mark 1:15; Lu 10:13; 15:10; 17:3; Ac 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:5-3:19.
ACTS 2:38 – Did Peter declare that baptism was necessary for salvation?
PROBLEM: Peter seems to be saying that those who responded had to repent and he baptized before they could receive the Holy Spirit. But this is contrary to the teaching of Paul that baptism is not part of the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:17) and that we are saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:4; Eph. 2:8-9).
RT: This is pitiful! Baptism is not part of the Gospel? Then why did Paul preach it, to say nothing of Jesus and Peter? The passage in 1 Corinthians 1 used to justify this pitiful remark has been perverted, as he is fully aware! Good night! “Faith alone”? Not a single passage that one can find in the New Testament, including the ones he referenced, will associate “faith” and “alone” together. This, too, he knows!
SOLUTION: This is resolved when we consider the possible meaning of being baptized “for” the remission of sins in the light of its usage, the whole context, and the rest of Scripture. Consider the following:
First, the word “for” (eis) can mean “with a view to” or even “because of.” In this case, water baptism would be because they had been saved, not in order to be saved.
Second, people are saved by receiving God’s word, and Peter’s audience “gladly received his word” before they were baptized (Acts 2:41).
Third, verse 44 speaks of “all who believed” as constituting the early church, not all who were baptized.
Fourth, later, those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47)
Fifth, Paul separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel” (1 Cor. 1: 17). But it is the Gospel which saves us (Rona. 1:16). Therefore, baptism is not part of what saves us.
Sixth, Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (Matt. 3:15). But the Bible declares clearly it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:5).
Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (John 20:31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should “believe” and be saved (cf. John 3:16, 18, 36).
RT: The writer clearly sees the force of the English preposition, understanding that it can mean “with a view to”. What does he do? He redefines it to mean “because of.” In support of this, he makes reference to passages wherein baptism is not mentioned and concludes that it is not necessary. This is a pitiful hermeneutic, egregious in fact!
The Greek word that gives us our English preposition is “eis.” In the Greek-English Concordance by J. B. Smith, Smith says this Greek word is used in the New Testament almost 1,775 times. The KJV of the Bible never translated it “because of”; in 56 occurrences it is not translated at all. Smith records there are 99 times wherein it is identified in a miscellaneous category, but not a single English rendering is “because of” (unless I simply missed it). Do you think this may mean something? You know that it does! Thus, his solution is no solution at all, but a perversion of what the Scripture teaches. He may have good intentions, but he failed to handle the evidence accurately.
His references to Acts 2:41, 44 are of no help to him because the context is clear regarding what the Holy Spirit is teaching. Amazing how he handles Scripture! What about Acts 10:47? This is frequently brought up but, once again, it proves nothing. Consider: since the English preposition means “with a view to” in Acts 2:38, then the Holy Spirit says that one must be baptized into Jesus with a view to receiving the forgiveness of sins. The fact the Holy Spirit came down on those who believed negates not one bit what He said in 2:38. To say otherwise is to pervert the Scripture. How then should it be understood? In Acts 10, this is an extraordinary case of teaching wherein the Jewish community learns that heaven accepts those of the non-Jewish community, and this is the point in chapter 10 and 11. Check it out.
What about 1 Corinthians 1:17? It is a complete fabrication of the context to say: “Paul separates baptism from the Gospel”. He does no such thing! He gives attention to how the command to be baptized is abused by some to gain a following. A fair reading of the context bears this out.
What about Matthew 3:15 in relation to Titus 3:5.
The passages read:
But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him (Matthew 3:15, ASV).
“not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)
Jesus said to John He must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Notice this: He “must be” baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Will a Reformed preacher say He did not have to be? How does this compare with what Paul wrote? Of course, they have Paul contradicting Jesus! Paul speaks of those righteous works which one does of his own volition, substituting the Lord’s will for his own (cf. Rom. 9:30 – 10:3), he speaks NOT of any commands of the Lord from the heart obeyed. And, moreover, what is this “washing of regeneration” of which Paul speaks? Robertson’s Word Pictures says this, “Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it.”Though RWP does not believe in its necessity, you’ll note that he does say it is a reference to baptism. Another standard Greek Commentary reads, “ιὰ λουτροῦ] For the stress on baptism, cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26 (the instrument of cleansing), 1 P 3:21 (of salvation, as here), John 3:5 (of new birth). There is probably a conscious reference to 1:15 and 2:14. We needed cleansing, but with more than Jewish ceremonial ablutions, with a washing that would entirely renew our nature” (International Critical Commentary; E-Sword).
There is another point to make, something that is paramount to understanding baptism in this context. Jesus said He must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Righteousness? Yes, righteousness. How so?
And all the people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him (Luke 7:29-30, ASV).
If John’s baptism (so to speak) is associated with God’s “justice” and His “counsel”, why do you think Jesus was baptized? Was it because of either? It certainly was! If He was not immersed, then neither are satisfied. In addition to this, not only was Jesus baptized to fulfill all righteousness, but He was baptized because of His identification with man, His creation. Each person baptized identifies with the Lord, thus baptism is necessary to salvation.
Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (John 20:31), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should “believe” and be saved (cf. John 3:16, 18, 36)
RT: Neither is the word “repent”, nor “repentance” used in John, therefore repentance is not necessary to salvation! The analogy is perfect, right? If baptism is mentioned in connection with salvation, then it is a condition of salvation, and Peter said as much (I will deal with the abuse of 1 Peter 3:21 as I get to it in this piece).
In view of these things I mentioned, the exegetical approach is less than stellar, in fact, one can’t learn the truth from him on this matter of salvation.
Baptized into Jesus’ Death
Romans 6:3-4 Updated American Standard Version (UASV); 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
6:3–4. Paul reminds the Roman believers (don’t you know?) of the meaning of their baptism. It is unfortunate that many modern believers in Christ can read these two verses and wonder if Paul is speaking metaphorically or figuratively about baptism—referring to some baptism of which they are unaware and with which they have had no experience. Granted—there is more than one kind of baptism mentioned in the New Testament and, yes, most of them are figurative. For instance, John the Baptist said that, whereas he baptized with water, Jesus Christ was coming to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11; John 1:33). Jesus himself confirmed the coming baptism by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and the fire appeared as well (Acts 2:3).
In addition, Paul said there is a non-water baptism by which the Holy Spirit places (immerses?) every believer into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Even the Israelites, Paul said, were somehow baptized “into Moses” as they were engulfed by the cloud and (seemingly) by the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2).
But in this case, Paul is referring to literal water baptism, and in a way that is unfortunately not emphasized when modern believers are baptized. Several important truths concerning baptism should be noted here: First, Paul is making the assumption that all the believers in Rome had been baptized. When he says all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus, he is not referring to all the believers who had been baptized as opposed to all the ones who had not. He is referring to all believers as opposed to non-believers who had not been baptized into Christ Jesus. Baptism does not appear to be an optional event in the Christian experience as it is for many modern believers.
RT: “Baptism does not appear to be an optional event in the Christian experience as it is for many modern believers.” What an interesting remark! Of course, this is true, but if it’s not optional, then it is a command that must be obeyed, and that which is a must is a must unto salvation (John 3:7; Acts 4:12). For without it, it is a command not obeyed and, thus, not pleasing to the Lord until it is obeyed. Since it is commanded by the Lord, the Lord requires it; if the Lord requires it, it is necessary to please Him, thus, necessary for salvation.
Not only is baptism not optional, the New Testament, especially the Book of Acts (see, e.g., Acts 9:18 and “Deeper Discoveries”), gives ample evidence that baptism occurred in the immediate context of faith-conversion. This is almost unheard of in contemporary Christendom. Often weeks, months, even years will pass between the time a person becomes a believer in Christ and his or her baptism. In modern Christianity, the primary emphasis is placed upon the intellectual event of “believing,” which is completely consistent with the post-Enlightenment environment of rational intellectualism. However, in the New Testament, equal emphasis appears to be placed on the physical—repenting and being baptized (Acts 2:38), accompanied by exhortations, warnings, and teachings that baptism without faith is a dead work; that baptism must be, as the Anglican catechism says, “an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace.”
RT: Whatever the Anglican catechism says, truth or not, if it’s not in the New Testament, its without salvation value.
Not only did baptism happen, and happen in the immediate context of conversion, it meant something! Here is a test which any teacher can use: before teaching the content of Romans 6:3–4, take a poll of the believers in the setting where you are teaching to determine how many of the believers have in fact been baptized, and what the average amount of time was that elapsed between conversion to Christ and baptism (you will likely be surprised). Then, have some people share their understanding of the meaning of baptism. See how many people can explain baptism in the terminology Paul uses in Romans 6:3–4.
You will likely not be surprised—but shocked! Most modern believers have not been taught the theological significance of baptism, nor do they know the important place baptism has as a symbol to be used by the Holy Spirit in their conscious minds and imaginations to help them live lives free from the mastery of sin (in the same way that the bread and cup are symbols which stimulate and motivate the believer to worship and holiness vis-a-vis the Lord’s Supper).
All believers should know and unite around the truths concerning baptism that Paul presents in these verses. To not understand the connection between baptism and freedom from sin is to miss a critical link between Romans 1–5 (justification based on the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) and Romans 6–8 (living sanctified lives based on the imputation of the efficacy and merit of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ).
The shortest version of Paul’s message in verses 3–4 is to reverse the order:
Verse 4b: Jesus Christ’s act of obedience by going to the cross—and his subsequent resurrection—was an act of solidarity in behalf of a human race that had inherited a permanently fatal sentence of death from father Adam (Rom. 5:12, 19). His purpose was to provide a new life for all who would, by faith, identify with him and his act of obedience to the glory of the Father.
Verse 4a: When Jesus Christ died on the cross and was resurrected on our behalf, he provided a faith-focus for the believer. Just as those who looked upon the bronze serpent in the wilderness were saved (Num. 21:8–9), so any who look upon the cross of Christ are saved today (John 3:14–15). We were not crucified and buried; Christ was. But when we are baptized as believers-in-what-he-did, we are baptized into—immersed in, made partakers of—[his] death in order that … we too may live a new life.
RT: Given the last sentence of the paragraph, if one is not baptized, or until that baptism takes place, then one has not partaken of His death and has not life, right?
Verse 3: “Don’t you know this?” Paul seems to be saying. “Don’t you know that you died to sin when you believed in Christ who died to the condemnation of sin that was yours? When you were baptized, you were baptized into his death.”
RT: Rather than what Paul “seems to be saying” let us notice what he said: “…that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” (ASV). There is no “believed in Christ” in this passage. One dies to sin, not at the point of “belief in Christ” (for the passage says nothing like this), but when he is baptized into Christ.
Remember: these statements of Paul’s are in answer to the question of his fictional opponent, “Shall we go on sinning?” (v. 1). He is answering, in essence, by saying that your baptism proves that you died to sin: “How can you possibly continue in something to which you died?” The believer who has died to sin has also been raised to live a new life. Sin was the old life, and your baptism means you agreed to be identified with a new life. How can you possibly think of leaving your new life and going back to your old life?
Baptism in the New Testament—and we are living in the era of the New Testament—is as close to getting saved by works without doing so as one can get. This is why some have misinterpreted verses in the New Testament and suggested that there is a connection between physical baptism and spiritual regeneration. There is not! Salvation is by faith alone. But when Peter says, “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16; emphasis added) and “baptism that now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21), it is not difficult to see the parallels between faith and baptism—but like railroad tracks, they remain parallel, never converging. Paul’s words to the Philippian jailer connect the two more clearly: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved … then immediately he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:31–33; emphasis added).
RT: Not only is “faith alone” found nowhere in the New Testament, but now we must address some points of the above paragraph that are just flat wrong! First, baptism is not a work of man, and it never has been. Any man (preacher) who call God’s commands a “work of man” fails to understand the New Testament or, at worse, is a false teacher. When one submits to the commands of the Lord (obeys them), that in no way is a work of man, neither can it ever be. On the other hand, if one makes use of God’s command only in outward appearance, that person has not obeyed the Lord from the heart, thus, still lost.
Second, is there a connection between baptism in water and spiritual regeneration? What is “spiritual regeneration”? That is the activity of God. When one obeys His will from the heart, then the Lord regenerates the spirit of that person, taking him (her) from the realm of darkness and translating him (her) into the realm of light (cf. Colossians 1:13-14). Let us now consider the two passages the author of this post (article) included.
Acts 22:16 – “…And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.”
1 Peter 3:21 – :…which 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;”
Now, looking at these two passages, what is a person to conclude? It is rather easy. He concludes the forgiveness of sins is directly correlated to the command to be baptized. Moreover, based on the words of Peter, one is saved when he (she) is baptized. There is no theological twisting in this interpretation, as there is that must take place to sustain the false doctrine of faith alone.
This now brings us to Acts 16:31. It is true, that when Paul said what he did, those who were taught (16:32) obeyed the command to be baptized (v. 33), which is part of that Gospel message that Paul taught. This absolutely negates his non-biblical remark concerning 1 Corinthians 1:17, wherein he said, “Paul separates baptism from the Gospel…” (see my remarks there).
The reason for the immediacy of baptism following conversion is because of what Paul explains in Romans 6:3–4. Baptism puts the believer physically, emotionally, and spiritually in touch with the object of his or her faith—the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified for them, in the following manner:
RT: If baptism “puts the believer … spiritually in touch with the object of his or her faith …” then without baptism, one is not in touch with the object of his or her faith!
Paul’s final words of verse 4—we too may live a new life—are the focus of his continuing explanation in verses 5–7: the purpose of death is to be freed from sin; to live a life no longer enslaved to the power, shame, and judicial guilt of sin, but a life “enslaved” to righteousness.
A submission of the will to the Father’s plan; a choice to die; death on a cross.
Agreement of the will with the Father’s judgment: “I deserve to die and accept God’s just decision and his merciful provision;” the point of conversion by faith for the believer.
The experience of being covered by death in a tomb or the “earth.” Christ took upon himself the sins of the world but in death was separated from sin as a master or condemner. Sin has no power over the dead.
Waters of baptism “cover” the believer as a picture of burial in a tomb or the earth. As Christ was separated and freed from the sins of the world in death, so the believer is symbolically freed from sin as a master.
Christ was resurrected from the dead to a “new life.”
As the believer comes out of the waters of baptism, a new life is begun.
Kenneth Boa and William Kruidenier, Romans, vol. 6, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 187–190.
Buried with Jesus In Baptism
Colossians 2:12 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
2:11–13a. Jesus Christ is fully God, and we are full in him. But what does spiritual fullness mean? How is it ours? In verses 11–15, Paul completes the argument of verses 9–10. Paul begins his explanation of fullness with complete salvation. The metaphors Paul chooses to explain our full salvation are circumcision and baptism. The point of these metaphors is that we are saved totally and exclusively through the work of God, not through any human activity.
No religious ritual can make us alive with Christ. Paul picks two familiar rituals in these verses, but he clearly is not talking about the physical acts of circumcision and baptism. Instead, he is talking about the spiritual reality behind the physical rite. The Jews were masters at physical rites. In Genesis 17, God instituted circumcision as a physical sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Every male was to be circumcised as tangible testimony that he was in a covenant relationship with Yahweh. The Jews began mistakenly to think that the physical ritual was sufficient all by itself.
The Bible is clear even in the Old Testament (Deut. 10:16; 30:6) that physical circumcision saves no one. This becomes even more unmistakable in the New Testament (Rom. 2:28–29). The circumcision Paul is talking about in Colossians 2:11 is the spiritual operation of putting away or cutting away—not of a piece of flesh—but the putting off of the “sinful nature” (niv) or the “old man” as it is referred to in Romans 6. What we were in Adam—sinful, fallen, corrupt—Christ destroyed. This happened at the moment of salvation when we were spiritually baptized into Jesus Christ. The baptism Paul is talking about (v. 12) is the spiritual baptism where we are united and identified with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:1–7).
How does the putting off of the sinful nature take place? Is it a simple outpatient procedure that can be done in virtually any medical clinic? No. For all our modern medical sophistication, no surgery can cut out our sinful nature and give us new life. This is an operation only God can perform. Paul tells us it is not done by the hands of men (v. 11).—Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, vol. 8, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 306.
RT: What is the baptism of Colossians 2:12, is it “spiritual” or in “water”? “No religious ritual can make us alive with Christ” is a true remark, but the emphasis is on “religious ritual.” What does he mean using this term? Does the Holy Spirit ever so describe it? He does not, so what does he mean? I interpret his meaning to be the use of this term (religious ritual) is that which corresponds to a physical application of elements (such as water) as having little to no spiritual value or benefit because no material element conveys spirituality.
It is true that material elements convey nothing spiritually because of “substance” of both are qualitatively different. Yet, it is false to suggest (or indicate plainly) there is no spiritual value in something when the Lord expressly said there is, such as forgiveness of sins received (spiritual) when one is immersed (into a material/physical element) into the Lord (spiritual location).
There is no ritual that saves, but a command of God obeyed saves.
The word “baptism” has neither “spirit” nor “water” attached to it, so what are we to understand? In his remarks on Romans 6, he already declared that Paul speaks of a literal baptism in water, which is associated with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since Paul speaks of a burial here, he has the same idea in view. But not according to the author of this treatise. Why the change? He justifies his change based on v. 11, where Paul clearly has spiritual circumcision in view, not a circumcision of the flesh. Since Paul has a spiritual circumcision in view (v. 11), he must have a spiritual baptism in view to make the analogy work.
This is false, however. The analogy works fine if it is kept in mind that circumcision was a matter of the Old Covenant, something that pertained only to the males of that covenant in a physical setting. Paul’s instructive use of the rite in 2:11 does not refer to a physical circumcision, but the circumcision of the heart, something done without hands, with the body of sins washed away in the physical act of baptism in water. Nothing in the physical act of baptism (by itself) washes away sins, but without one submitting to it (in conjunction with a penitent faith), the “washing away of sins” without hands will not be accomplished. In the New Covenant, God’s seal is not physical in nature, but spiritual, accomplished by our passive submission to baptism. The Expositor’s Greek Testament commentary reads, “This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptised was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ” (E-Sword).
Washed and Sanctified
1 Corinthians 6:11Updated American Standard Version (UASV) – 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
6:11. Many of the believers in Corinth once lived in these patterns of life, but Christ had changed them so they became much more reliable as judges of disputes within the church. Since these patterns of life were in the past for those who truly believed, they could take confidence that they would inherit the kingdom of God. Those believers who still fell into these sins needed to remember that their new identities in Christ (what some of you were) protected them from judgment. At the same time, their new identities also required that they live no longer like the wicked, but like believers.
Believers are washed, cleansed from sin through faith in Christ as symbolized in baptism (Acts 9:17–18). They are sanctified, set apart from the world and brought into relationship with God (Acts 20:32; 26:18). They have been justified, declared innocent before God (Rom. 3:24; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:7). This blessing comes to believers in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as they call on Jesus’ name and rely upon him for their salvation. They also come by the Spirit of our God as the Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ to believers (Rom. 15:16; Eph. 1:13–14; Titus 3:5). Followers of Christ differ fundamentally from the sinful world around them. Therefore, believers should not make it their practice to bring their lawsuits against one another before unbelievers. —Richard L. Pratt Jr, I & II Corinthians, vol. 7, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 90.
RT: The word “symbolized” is used in connection with baptism, suggesting the actual salvific command is not that. Even if this was to be granted – which it is not – with his use of this word in association with baptism, without it, one is not washed!
Baptized into One Body
1 Corinthians 12:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV): 13 For by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit.
12:12–13. The apostle issued three statements which set up the basic structure of his analogy. First, the human body is a unit. It is one body, even though it has many parts. Second, just as one human body has many parts, so it is with the body of Christ. Paul often called the church “the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4). Here he pointed to the unity in diversity that exists in the church as Christ’s body. Third, Paul explained how Christ’s body resembles the human body. To emphasize the diversity within the church, he mentioned racial and social diversity first; Jews, Greeks, slave, and free all contribute to the church. No matter what had previously separated these people, they all had been joined together in one body by means of the one Spirit.
Paul emphasized two experiences of the Holy Spirit that all believers share and that bring unity among them: (1) they are all baptized by one Spirit; and (2) they are all given the one Spirit to drink. Many interpreters argue that Paul was not referring to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They divide baptism of the Holy Spirit from water baptism, and note that drinking of the Spirit is a metaphor for receiving the Spirit at conversion (John 7:37–39).
Also, in the modern church people often profess faith in Christ and remain unbaptized for long periods of time. As regenerate believers they have the Holy Spirit even though they have not been baptized. Thus, interpreters hesitate to equate baptized too closely with given the one Spirit. Further, no account of the Lord’s Supper refers to partaking of the Holy Spirit in the cup.
Even so, the text implies these ordinances and the New Testament church could hardly have conceived that followers of Christ would remain unbaptized or refrain from participating in the Lord’s Supper. Such believers would have been considered odd (Acts 10:47–48). These ordinances were signs and seals of the new covenant that all true believers were expected to undergo. For this reason, Paul spoke of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as experiences shared by all true believers that symbolized their union with one another in the Spirit and in the body of Christ.
Note the way these verses present Paul’s argument. Specifically, Paul assumed the unity of the church on the basis of the Spirit. Verses 14–24a especially do not argue for the church’s unity so much as they assume it. They argue for diversity. In the modern, fragmented church, many people consider diversity an obstacle to be overcome in the quest for unity. But from Paul’s perspective, unity was to be sought in the Spirit, not in uniformity. The church’s fullness and ability to function properly depend upon its diverse manifestations of the Spirit.—Richard L. Pratt Jr, I & II Corinthians, vol. 7, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 217–218.
RT: The New Testament does not teach there is such a thing as an unbaptized Christian. This is a teaching of man, and not of the Holy Spirit. Neither does Paul say a thing about the Lord’s Supper in chapter 12, for that he did in chapters 10 and 11, but chapter 12 -14 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper. The reception of the Holy Spirit is conditioned on repentance and baptism, as Peter said: “And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 ASV). What is the “Spirit” of 1 Corinthians 12:13? Some think Holy Spirit baptism (which needs to be properly defined), others refer this to Acts 2:38 (cf. Alford). In either case, the significance of baptism is made clear.
Through the Washing of Regeneration
Titus 3:5 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 5 he saved us, not by deeds of righteousness that we have done, but because of his mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
Regeneration (Rebirth), Born Again, Born of God, Born of the Spirit: (Gr. palingenesiai; gennaō anōthen; gennaō theos; gennaō pneuma) This regeneration is the Holy Spirit working in his life, giving him a new nature, who repents and accepts Christ, placing him on the path to salvation. By taking in this knowledge of God’s Word, we will be altering our way of thinking, affecting our emotions, behavior, and lives now and for eternity. This Word will influence our minds, making corrections in the way we think. If we are to have the Holy Spirit controlling our lives, we must ‘renew our mind’ (Rom. 12:2) “which is being renewed in knowledge” (Col. 3:10) of God and his will and purposes. (Matt 7:21-23; See Pro 2:1-6) All of this boils down to each individual Christian digging into the Scriptures in a meditative way, so he can ‘discover the knowledge of God, receiving wisdom; from God’s mouth, as well as knowledge and understanding.’ (Pro. 2:5-6) As he acquires the mind inundated with God’s Word, he must also “be doers of the Word.”–John 3:3; 6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; James 1:22-25.
3:5–6. Jesus, in these actual events, gained salvation for all people who believe. Rescuing us from the grip of corruption, he saved us.
The work of salvation comes solely from God’s mercy, not because of righteous things we had done. As Isaiah 64:6 states, “All our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” We can contrive no goodness by which to attain the favor or forgiveness of God. Salvation comes independent of human effort or desire. God initiates, acts, and pursues because of his mercy.
Salvation comes through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. These terms explain, in part, the complex activities which faith in Christ generates. The washing of rebirth refers to the cleansing from sin which results from trust in Jesus Christ. This purification of the sound spirit brings life. No longer living on a purely natural or physical level, believers are transformed from spirit-death to spirit-life. They count themselves “dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11). Renewal carries the same idea, that a person has come into a new existence, both in this life and for eternity. The Holy Spirit participates in Salvador, establishing his presence in the soul and enabling each person to act in true righteousness.
God has poured out this Holy Spirit on us generously. God always acts in extravagance, and his gift of the Spirit to those who believe demonstrates his greatest liberality. Not only has he rescued us from the frustrations and enslavements of sin; he has assured a spiritual power and development that would lie beyond us without his personal interaction. The Spirit enables us to follow in the ways of Christ.—Knute Larson, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, vol. 9, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 382–383.
RT: “That the ‘washing of regeneration’ is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος. It is the instrument (διά) of salvation (cp. 1Pet 3.21 ὅ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a ‘state of salvation,’ in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. For λουτρόν ‘washing,’ cp. Song 4:2; Sir. 34:25.” (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary)
“Here, as in Romans 6 and 1Pet. 3:21, it is assumed that man co-operates with God in the work of his own salvation” (Expositors Greek Testament Commentary).
Offer Sacrifices Clean and Undefiled
Hebrews 10:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
10:22. We can now approach God and have the mercy and grace of our High Priest standing over us. This blessing brings us many privileges. The next three verses contain three exhortations.
The first exhortation is for believers to draw near to God in an expression of personal devotion. Four conditions for approaching God are given.
First, we are to come with a sincere heart. This calls for genuine devotion rather than hypocrisy. Second, we are to come in full assurance of faith. This demands a bold confidence that God has provided full access to his presence through Christ alone. Third, we are to have our hearts sprinkled … from a guilty conscience. This demands constant confession of our sins and openness to God. Finally we are to have our bodies washed with pure water. This may be a reference to baptism as an outward commitment to Christ, or it might be symbolic as is the previous reference to hearts sprinkled with blood. If it is symbolic, the hearts sprinkled from a guilty conscience would picture our salvation, and our bodies washed would symbolize a righteous lifestyle. In this new state of purity made possible by Jesus, believers can come boldly to God and claim his grace and mercy.—Thomas D. Lea, Hebrews, James, vol. 10, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 186.
Baptism Now Saves You?
1 Peter 3:21 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the flesh but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Verse 21 has also generated great debate. This writer believes that Peter used the historical account of Noah and his family as an analogy for the triumphant salvation provided through Christ. His reference to baptism, however, is not water baptism. The flood waters did not save Noah—quite the opposite. The waters of the flood destroyed everyone in judgment. Noah passed through those waters safely because he and his family were placed securely in the ark. Water baptism does not fit the picture and is not the point.
The point of the analogy becomes clear when we recall that when a person accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior, he or she is placed into “the body of Christ.” At that moment the Holy Spirit enters that person’s life as a permanent resident. This action is described in the New Testament as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Cor. 12:13). This is Peter’s emphasis. When you accept Christ, you are placed spiritually in Christ. As this occurs, you stand before God with a “good conscience” (v. 21) because your sins have been forgiven. Water baptism does not provide a person with a clear conscience before God; baptism by the Holy Spirit does.—David Walls and Max Anders, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude, vol. 11, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 57.
RT: An illustration of a poor interpretation! Baptism is a burial, the destroying of the old way for a new way. The analogy of Peter is precisely that. As those in Noah’s day died because of the waters of the flood, even so those baptized died to their old way, precisely as Paul stated in Romans 6.
Robertson’s Word Pictures: “Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water. For baptisma see note on Mat. 3:7. For antitupon see note on Heb. 9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tupon Heb. 8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’s family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful.”
Robertson is precisely correct, but, I suppose, he could not help himself with that last remark “…only a vague parallel”? There is nothing vague about it.
Keep Walking in Divine Light
1 John 1:7 Updated American Standard Version (UASV): 7 but if we are walking in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1:7. On the other hand, when we walk in the light (live in light of truth, knowledge, and righteousness), two things happen. First, we have fellowship with one another. Some commentators teach that the fellowship is with other Christians. If so, the sense would be, “If we walk in truth, knowledge, and righteousness, we have full fellowship with other Christians who do the same.” On the other hand, other commentators reject that interpretation for grammatical reasons. The Greek pronoun for “one another” (allelon), they say, would normally refer to the two parties named in the first part of the statement (God and the Christian). If so, the sense would be, “If we walk in truth, knowledge, and righteousness, we have fellowship with God who is light and has no darkness.”
The second thing that happens when we live in the light is that the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. This strengthens the interpretation that the fellowship is between God and the Christian. It seems less connected to suggest that when we walk in the light, we have fellowship with Christians and the blood of Jesus purifies us from sin. It seems more natural to suggest that when we walk in the light, we have fellowship with God and are cleansed by God from every sin. It would certainly also be true that if we are walking in the light, we would have fellowship with other Christians, so no great doctrinal truth is lost regardless of which way this verse is interpreted.
To be “purified from all sin” does not suggest that if a believer does not walk in the light, his sins are not forgiven in the judicial sense. Nor does it mean that all believers are completely freed from all sin. Rather, the verb is in the present tense, suggesting a continuous and progressive action. It might include the forgiveness and purification from all past sin at the moment of salvation. But because of the present tense, it goes further to suggest that those who are walking in the light have sin’s defilement removed and that they experience a progressive sanctification—a progressive character transformation into the image of Jesus.
All sin means every kind of sin and shows there is no limit to the categories of sin that Christ is willing to forgive. His sacrificial death made every type of sin forgivable —David Walls and Max Anders, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude, vol. 11, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 156–157.
Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness
Revelation 1:5 Updated American Standard Version (UASV): 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins by his blood.
1:5a. Jesus Christ equally provides divine grace and peace. He is described in three ways. He is the faithful witness, a reference to Jesus’ work as a Prophet, revealing God’s Word both during his earthly ministry and in the present book. Next he is the firstborn from the dead, a reminder of his death and resurrection. Perhaps we may think of Jesus’ work as Priest here; he is the one now in heaven on behalf of his people. (Rev. 5 expands this by portraying Jesus as the slaughtered Lamb in heaven.) Finally, he is the rulerof the kings of the earth, an obvious reference to his sovereign role as King, in contrast to the Roman emperors who thought they were in control. (Rev. 19 shows Jesus as the conquering King.) After this point in Revelation, John prefers the name “Jesus” or “Lord Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ.”
1:5b–6. All Persons of the Trinity send grace and peace. Jesus in particular is named as the one to receive glory and power for ever and ever. John now bursts into a hymn of praise to Jesus, a doxology Glory and words for power are linked several times in Revelation (see also 4:11; 5:12, 13; 7:12; 15:8, 19:1). They are attributed both to God the Father and to Jesus the Son. In the present context, Jesus is worthy for three specific deeds: he loves us, he freed us from our sins, and he made us to be a kingdom and priests. The verb love is a form that could be translated “keeps on loving.” The us means “his servants” (v. 1).
In the Old Testament, Israel was set free in the context of the death of the Passover lamb. In the New Testament, as Revelation 5:9 clarifies, “You [Jesus, the Lamb on the throne] were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Revelation 7:14, the only other text in Revelation in which blood refers to the death of Jesus, uses the startling image of cleansing through being dipped in the Lamb’s blood.
An important Old Testament designation for the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt, kingdom and priests (Exod. 19:6), is now transferred to “us.” If Jesus is King over earthly kings (v. 5), he is especially King over the kingdom of God. If he is the Priest now in heaven on behalf of his people, he has a multitude of priests on earth to serve his God and Father. These priests are not a specialized clergy class, but include all of “us.”—Kendell H. Easley, Revelation, vol. 12, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 14–15.
How can I say such a thing? Consider the following: first, the name of the church is found nowhere in the New Testament. Second, the form of government (presbyterian) is only partially in accordance with the New Testament, but not very much. In the New Testament, the elders (presbyters, bishops, overseers, pastors) are the local leaders of the congregation; there is no earthly headquarters on earth, there is no place to whom a local congregation is to send money to finance an institution that directs from some other location. Third, and this is the significant point in this article, the Lord’s church does not alter its stance when the Lord declares Himself on a topic. The Presbyterian Church USA can’t say that.
Notice the headline from the Washington Times: “Presbyterian group to count ‘nonbinary/genderqueer’ members in next census, church says” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/26/presbyterian-group-count-nonbinarygenderqueer-memb). The gist of this news piece is related to identifying among them their members and how they identify. A representative of the church said, “For instance, we’ve always asked how many female members there are in the church. We’re now asking how many men, women and nonbinary/genderqueer members there are. We’ve never asked that question so we don’t know how many people will fill it out.”
Members of the Lord’s church are those who have been saved by the blood of the Lamb, those who have identified with the Lord Jesus in their dying to sin and living unto righteousness. Those who identify as “nonbinary / genderqueer” (sounds robotic) are morally and spiritually sick people who are in desperate need of the Lord on His terms, not their own.
Because the Presbyterian Church allows their doctrines to be controlled by the political climate of the day, it was noted, “‘It’s one of the fastest declining denominations in America,’ Mr. Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a D.C.-based think tank, said. ‘Is it even going to exist as a denomination 15 years from now?’”
Lest it be perceived that the spiritually sick can find no place in the Lord’s church, let us be reminded that all of us can identify, to some degree, with those on the outside who are spiritually sick, whatever their sickness might be (or might have been). We all need a home, but as we seek a home, let it be the Lord’s home and on His terms. Otherwise, when we make a home for ourselves on our own terms, we soon learn it has no foundation.
The rod and reproof give wisdom; But a child left to himself causeth shame to his mother. When I was a child, in our home, discipline was firmly in place. Our parents were authority, and the children didn’t challenge authority unless each of us desired a reckoning. I had no desire for such judgments. As a grandparent, I have seen way too many parents be controlled by the children. Corporal punishment was utilized by my parents, but never overdone. It needs to be utilized today by loving parents; without it, not only do the children have no discipline and respect instilled, but the children grow up to be adults without respect in a world where other adults take no prisoners (Prov. 29:15, ASV).
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination (Prov. 28:9 ASV).
To turn away from hearing the Lord means, in practical terms, you’re not interested in what He says. Think about that for a moment. It is so easy to pray, but how many are aware the Lord hears not? Look at the Lord’s exhortation in these words; are you a man or woman of prayer, yet, if you have given no attention to what the Lord says AND have turned your heart back to Him in obedience, then you can be sure He does not hear you.
Have you ever played baseball, got up to bat and swung at the pitch thrown and missed? I have done that many times; in fact, I have struck out several times. Though I did not strike out much, the times I did was humiliating to me. I lost. If I could have hit the ball, even a grounder into a double play, at least I hit the ball and did not strike out. Only one time did I hit the ball far enough to round the bases and score (a homerun). An exhilarating feeling; something that occurred over 40 years ago (about 1973), I still remember.
I remember when I recovered a lose football during the fall of the year when I was in high school, then doing it again in the end zone. It was my “homerun” in a football game that I remember even still today.
Baseball is a good metaphor.
I enrolled in school at Bluffton College in the summer/fall of 1979. I went to play football; my future wife (Anne Lyon, a young lady I did not know at the time) went to school to get an education. Imagine that! I was not a good football player, but I had heart and started on the junior varsity team.
Football season was over; now it was just me and my roommate. He was from Tokyo, Japan (Shigeo Hashimoto). He was a great roommate, respectful and kind. He was dating a young lady from Michigan. This young lady from Michigan had friend, not her roommate. In early 1980, it was “get-your-roommate-a-date” night (I don’t know if that is what it was called, but that was the effect of it.)
Shigeo and his girlfriend connected Anne and me together. I don’t remember much about it, but for some reason I don’t think I impressed her. I was dating a preacher’s daughter already (if it could be called dating), but there was not much intrigue on either side in that attempt by me. It did not last long. Before we said goodbye to one another, I was already in the initial stages of seeing Anne. Anne was (and still) is quiet (except at home), pretty and overly considerate. No doubt, when she looked at me she might have seen something positive, but looks was not one of them!
I hit a single when Anne started talking to me.
The school year ended and I was still on 1st base. That summer Anne got sick, I learned that I was unable to return to school (economics), but Anne wanted me to stay on 1st base. I wanted to stay there also. Our long-distance dating continued, but as young people often do, we left open other possibilities. I think I might have pursued one, not more than two possibilities, but in both cases I did not even make it to 1st base.
Looking back on it, I am glad I was thrown out before I reached 1st base.
With Anne, I made it to 2nd base when we started getting serious, but our seriousness in relationship was in the early stages. We respected one another and the moral code with which Anne was raised made the difference. I was raised with a similar one, but Anne took it more seriously than me. In time our dating went from the 2nd into the 3rd year (her sophomore-junior years at Bluffton College). If I recall correctly, I made it to 3rd base when Anne and I decided to marry. I only wish I remembered about the time when that was.
On 3rd base I stood until the wedding day in August 1983. It was on that day that I hit a homerun.
I thought I would hit may homeruns, but as maturity takes hold, I grounded out at 1st more times than I wish to count.
The years unfolded; now in our 39th year, as I was bathing, I heard a song I have always liked. Frankie Valli sang “My eyes adored you.” Always liked it but now in my 62nd year of life, it encouraged me to reflect on the homerun I hit. It does not represent precisely my experience, but a portion of the chorus rings true. I have often said, and believe it to be true, that Anne is my better half (every man ought to say that about his wife, and if he can’t, he must figure out a way to get after it, work on it so it can be said!)
Each morning she gets up, she either says a bubbly word like “Hello” or just waves. She makes sure that she greets me. Me, I mumble. When I come home, she does the same. I return the word, but not to the same degree of “bubbly” as she. This kind of greeting may not mean much to you, but they mean a lot to me. We have fussed and fumed, I have pouted and so has she, but she is the one, generally, who initiates a reconnect. I am the lucky one! What in the world did she see in me!
With Anne, I not only made it to 1st base, but I round the bases continually. She does not throw me a fast-ball to strike me out; she simply makes sure I can hit the pitch she throws. Sometimes I swing and miss. Other times, I am able to connect.
The glue that holds us together, in this order, is God, Anne and me. Unfortunately, I am a distant 3rd.
My eyes adore you.
At my funeral, these words I want read. I am somewhat of a “gap” man, and Anne will have to fill in the many gaps because better-half’s can do that.
How should I look at what has been termed “the fairer sex”? Here is how I choose to look at them.
They are worthy of protection. There is something virtuous in protecting those not as strong as a male. Thus, they are worthy to die for.
They are worthy of deference. By this I mean, in so far as is possible, defer to her who has your heart. I have been married 39 years, and my deference to my wife has yet to fail me. As it turns out, that which I do to her, she returns to me.
Understand that perfection is fleeting, but love is not. I still lift weights and workout the heart muscle, but as we get older, the muscles are not as strong and the skin is not as tight, and the aches and pain last a little longer. The quality of love, however, is much stronger.
Though I am not consistent, when a females approaches a male to converse, let the male stand up, remove his cap, and say “Yes, Ma’am.” Let him give up his seat for her all the time. If anyone stands, let it be him.
Never speak in such a way you would embarrass yourself in front of your mother. Let this be applied to being in the presence of any female. If you fail to do this, you are not much of a man.
The male (husband, father) is the leader of the family, but the female (wife, mother) raises the children and, thus, shapes the world.
What happens if there is a female not worthy of any of this? No doubt, there are many females like this. First, have a default position like what I have suggested. Second, if/when you come across one like this, move on and don’t soil your name by descending into a way of thinking and behaving that brings discredit to your name. Third, she may look at you and take notice of how you respond to her, and change her mind.