Skip to main content

Objections to Baptism

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

Some churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of belief, before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

Objection #1:Jesus could not have been baptized for the remission of sins because He was sinless; therefore, people today are not baptized in order to be forgiven. They merely imitate Jesus’ example.

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.

Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son...&rdquo that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).

Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

Objection #2:The thief on the cross was not baptized, and he was saved.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death. It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).

The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).

So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, New Testament baptism for the forgiveness of sins was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.

The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10) and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23) had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

Objection #3:The Bible says, ‘Christ stands at the door of your heart’ and all we have to do to be forgiven of sin and become a Christian is to invite Him into our hearts.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually quoted to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed to Christians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.

Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They must recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They need to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).

Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.

Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heart through faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

Objection #4:A person is saved the moment he accepts Christ as his personal Savior—which precedes and therefore excludes water baptism.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than merely “calling on his name” (see Lyons, 2004) or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.

Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Objection #5:We are clothed with Christ and become His children when we place our faith in Him.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduo which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.

Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ?” When were they made “sons of God?” When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, put on Christ, were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

Objection #6:Baptism is like a badge on a uniform that merely gives evidence that the person is already saved.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolic act; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).

Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].”

Objection #7:Baptism is a meritorious work, whereas we are saved by grace, not works.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, obedient response is essential.

The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, is dead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter. Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.

From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient response that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (hupakoein pisteos) at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise. Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.

The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, i.e., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessing, i.e., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith&rdquo by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.

It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. God always bestows blessings which men do not deserve (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive His blessings.

Objection #8:Not only is baptism nonessential to salvation, even faith is a gift from God to a person. Man is so depraved that he is incapable of believing.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.

Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall when the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith” after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely-stipulated prerequisites.

Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.

Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the same sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.

According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.

We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift&rsquo.” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things! And they were things that God could not do for them.

First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?

Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their *****ed hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.

Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

Objection #9:The preposition ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ in Acts 2:38 means ‘because of.’ Hence, they were baptized because of sins for which they were forgiven when they believed.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The exact same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eis aphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.

Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

Objection #10:When the Philippian jailer asked what to do to be saved, he was simply told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was the jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be told both how and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). And then observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation that it was only after the jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.

Objection #11:Saul was saved before and without baptism while he was on the road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him.”

The sequence of events clearly shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.

This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed and guarded). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals! Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?

Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what to do! He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21)—not a vision of Jesus on a road. Saul—like Cornelius—still needed to hear words from a preacher. An angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.

Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and still blind! Here’s an individual who is still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly states when (not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

Objection #12:If baptism is necessary to salvation, Jesus would have said, “but he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned” in Mark 16:16. And besides, the last nine verses of Mark 16 are not included in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is totally logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized&rdquo describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.

The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection of Vaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books. [NOTE: For a thorough discussion of this matter, see Miller, 2005, 25(12):89-95.]

Objection #13:Romans 10:9-10 indicates that all one needs to do is believe and confess Jesus.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).

But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands (Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.

In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), or whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that Jewish nationality could not bring them into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.

If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.

Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior&rdquo. Why?

(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in scripture.

(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!

(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 tells the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”

Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. Baptism washed his sins away at that moment.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries have veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation. No objection may be put forth that overturns this divinely-intended function.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2748

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi OK,

You have shown us a lot about what Dave Miller, Ph.D. believes about baptism -- but, not one word about what you, OK, believe about baptism.   I am more interested in your beliefs than in those of Mr. Miller.

So, Ok, please tell us your beliefs about baptism.

What do I believe about baptism?  I believe it is one of two ordinances, baptism and communion, left for ALL Christian believers to do in remembrance of Him -- until He returns.   I believe, to be obedient to Christ -- unless there is an overriding reason preventing it -- a person most certainly should be baptized.

I believe that baptism is an outward manifestation of an inner change.  I believe that because I have been saved through Him, I should be obedient and follow Him in death (going under the water) and in resurrection (rising from the water).  I believe that baptism should be by immersion since that is the meaning of the word -- and it is the means by which He was baptized.

Do I believe that baptism saves a person?   No.  I believe that baptism is the finishing touch of our salvation; not the cause of our salvation.

Mark 1:8,  "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

What does this mean, to be baptized with the Holy Spirit?    If you recall, in Ephesians 1:13-14, we are taught, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation -- having also believed, --  you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise  of His glory."

Acts 1:4-5, "Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised,  'Which,' He said, 'you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days  from now.'"

His disciples, 120 of them, waited and prayed in the Upper Room for 10 days, until the Day of Pentecost (50 days after His  resurrection) -- and then the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 2:4), i.e., their baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That is the baptism of the Holy Spirit -- when a person believes and immediately is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised in Acts 1:8.  And, we are told, in Ephesians 4:30, that the Holy Spirit seals us for God -- until the day of our redemption.  That is the day we either die in this mortal body or are Raptured into our immortal bodies by Jesus Christ.

Mark 16:16, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Notice that this Scripture verse puts the emphasis on belief and non-belief -- not on baptism.  It says, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" -- but, it does not say, "but he who has disbelieved AND NOT BEEN BAPTIZED shall be  condemned."

Search all the Scripture passages regarding baptism -- and you will find: "Repent, and each of you be baptized" (Acts 2:38) or "they believed Philip preaching the good news. . . they were being baptized" (Acts 8:12) or "Even Simon himself believed; and after being  baptized"  (Acts 8:13) or "

Notice that is is always -- BELIEVE, then he/she is baptized.   When the person believes, that moment he/she is indwelled with the Holy Spirit.  THEN, he/she is baptized to follow Christ.

And, the Bible says of the apostle Paul, after his conversion on the road to Damascus, in Acts 9:18, "And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;"

Before a person believes and is saved, he/she is spiritually blind; but, upon believing the person is indwelled with the Holy Spirit and given spiritual discernment, made spiritually alive -- his/her spiritual eyes are opened to the wonder and glory of God.  I believe that, when the scales fell from Paul's eyes -- this was symbolic of his being spiritually saved, being given spiritual vision, being saved.   Then, he was baptized.   You can see the progression.

Peter, when he went to the house of Cornelius, the Gentile Roman centurion, and taught the Word, we read in Acts 10:44-45, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.  All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also."

And, then we read, in Acts 10:47, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

Once again, we see the progression:  Hear the Gospel, Believe in Jesus Christ, Receive the Indwelling Holy Spirit -- Then, be  Baptized.

Yes, I believe that all Christian believers should be baptized and I believe it is an honor to follow Him in baptism.  In no way am I downplaying the importance of baptism.   To honor and follow our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ -- EVERY Christian believer should make every attempt to be baptized into His death and resurrection.  But, first, the person must, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life, i.e., be saved.

Otherwise, the baptism is nothing more that a bath without soap.   Think of the indwelling Holy Spirit as the spiritual soap which will cleanse you forever.  If you do not have this spiritual cleansing -- all you did was get wet.

And, that, OK, is my personal beliefs on baptism.  And, I do believe this is supported by Scripture.  Yet, I am sincerely interested in knowing your beliefs on baptism.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bil

To be truly honest Bill I had no idea how far reaching this false teaching of yours, Joy’s and others has spread.

It is little wonder that the secular world sees religion as a joke. I’ll admit I don’t see the same disregard for the scriptures on your part as I do Joy‘s as she blatantly has no regard as to how she hurts others and condones the evil of others and encourages others to sin.. Just today her assistant BM50 threatened a Christian man and I quote b50m “

JR, you want to troll, go right ahead. I'll cut your trolling nuts off.” Now b50m is the same slimy character as LMM\ Little Mean Mama that was kicked off this forum long ago by the Times Daily

To advocate that sins don’t count for yourselves yet at the same time others are condemned to an eternity of punishment is wrong Bill..

Hi OK,

 

You write, "To advocate that sins don’t count for yourselves -- yet at the same time others are condemned to an eternity of punishment is wrong Bill."

 

This discussion is about baptism, not about sin.   And, you claim that salvation is THROUGH baptism.  Yet, the Bible teaches me that baptism FOLLOWS salvation.    I see baptism as an outward manifestation of an inner change.  And, you see baptism as the vehicle of salvation.   I would have sworn that Jesus Christ tells us that He is the WAY to eternal life with God (John 14:6) -- yet, you say the WAY is baptism.

 

Then, when I ask what YOU believe about baptism -- you tell me, "I will argue precisely the same as Miller."

 

In other words, instead of thinking for yourself, you are like the guy who, when asked by the professor in the classroom, "What does that mean to you?" -- you respond, "I believe what all the other people in the class believe." 

 

OK, my Friend, I told you in my earlier post, with Scripture references, exactly what I believe about baptism.  Yet, you tell me, "Yeah, like all those guys!"

 

If you cannot clearly tell us what YOU believe and back it up with Scripture -- are you sure you really know what you believe?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by okuok:

To be truly honest Bill I had no idea how far reaching this false teaching of yours, Joy’s and others has spread.

It is little wonder that the secular world sees religion as a joke. I’ll admit I don’t see the same disregard for the scriptures on your part as I do Joy‘s as she blatantly has no regard as to how she hurts others and condones the evil of others and encourages others to sin.. Just today her assistant BM50 threatened a Christian man and I quote b50m “

JR, you want to troll, go right ahead. I'll cut your trolling nuts off.” Now b50m is the same slimy character as LMM\ Little Mean Mama that was kicked off this forum long ago by the Times Daily

To advocate that sins don’t count for yourselves yet at the same time others are condemned to an eternity of punishment is wrong Bill..

LOL, boy did you fall for that one Ramm!!!!!!

 

Worth the trouble of reading your slimy comments.  Want me to quote those?


 

Post  Rramlimnn on Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:04 pm

JR how's it going on LBB's forum. She follows me around like a hungry cat. I'll bet she is a ***** to live with. She ia a real ill ass. I'll bet she's been married a dozen times. just sayin'.
I don't know why Joy has got her over there as a mod. Joy better not make her an admin. I would think Joy has better sense than to trust her.

 

 

Rramlimnn on on Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:43 am
I didn't realize guzzle had referred to Sally as a troll. That's bad. Joy will let them say anything they want to say about people over there. I noticed they put out a call for all blacksheep to assemble over there. Joy actually thinks she can mistreat others and God is ok with it. actually I think that is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. She has had every oppertunity to ask my forgiveness for what she did to me out of her hate for the beautiful and talented Monet. She is more than likely jealous of the Beautiful and talented Sally. that's my guess why she allows guzzle to insult ladies.

I see Joy as a candidate for Gods wrath in the end. I cannot see God having her attitude in heaven.
She keeps fat-asses like LMM around to make herself look good. affraid I heard Joy was going to start a new side business with LMM. She is going to use her to "haint houses". affraid

 

 

Let's see how much doesn't get filtered.

quote:  Originally Posted by okuok:

Bill, miller believes the same thing I believe regarding the subject.  All I can tell you as you are wrong.  Did you even study the post?


Hi OK,

 

Then, why can't you explain in your own words, supported by Scripture, what you believe?  You tell me, "All I can tell you as you are wrong."  But, you cannot tell me where I am wrong.  I have shown you Scripture passages supporting my beliefs.  Are those Scripture passages wrong?

 

OK, if you attended an Alabama/Auburn football game and the referee kept calling 15 yard penalties against your team -- and, when asked what rules were broken, all he could say is,"All I can tell you as you are wrong" -- how much credibility would he have as a referee?   How long before the team and the crowd ran him out of the stadium?  My Friend, you are walking that same line when you tell me I am wrong -- but, cannot tell me where I am wrong -- and cannot support your decision/opinions by any authority.

 

So, OK, what do you believe and where am I wrong?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill you must be satisfied with my copy and paste. I don’t argue Biblical doctrine as you require.

I leave that to professionals like Miller in your case.

I presented you with the truth. If you want to argue it’s wrong I think you are kidding yourself.

I realize you’re not the only person that believes as do you. Joy is a osas just like you but she takes it to extremes.

I think joy claims she had some out of body experience at a young age that somehow set her adrift. The same thing probably happened to a lot of kids and they didn’t go bizarre.

Bill your story and hers are believed by the both of you . That’s ok. I’m not going to argue any science on my own.

Side note” anyone whom doesn’t believe in God spends most of their time in the business of denying Him when time would be better spent in some sort of study.

I’ve never seen a true scientist act with such reckless abandon of truth. So why do you dingbat atheist wanna-be’s spend so much time on something you don’t believe. In?

quote: Originally Posted by okuok:

Bill you must be satisfied with my copy and paste. I don’t argue Biblical doctrine as you require.  I leave that to professionals like Miller in your case.  I presented you with the truth. If you want to argue it’s wrong I think you are kidding yourself.  I realize you’re not the only person that believes as do you. Joy is a osas just like you but she takes it to extremes.


Hi OK,

 

For a while, I was not sure that you were the Buffalo, et al, that folks were claiming.  But, in your recent posts and with your tirades against Joy, Deep, et al -- you have for sure blown your cover.

 

My Friend, you have told me that I am wrong.  All I ask is that, since you believe I am wrong -- tell me where I am wrong.   That would seem to be a reasonable request.   However, if you cannot even answer such a simple request, you are right -- there is no need for us to continue to dialogue.

 

I have stated my position Biblically.   You have copy/pasted another person's writing and when asked what YOU believe, you can only say, "Yeah, I believe what all those other guys believe!"   Buffalo, OK, or whoever you are -- how can you claim a faith -- when you have no idea what you have faith in -- or why?

 

You tell me, "Bill you must be satisfied with my copy and paste." 

 

Well, I suppose if that is the best you can do -- that is true.

 

One last question.   Why do you need to have so many posting names?  I am familiar with the Joanne Woodward movie, "The Three Faces Of Eve" -- but, "The Twenty-Five Faces Of Buffalo"?  Seems rather odd; don't you agree?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

One last question.   Why do you need to have so many posting names?  I am familiar with the Joanne Woodward movie, "The Three Faces Of Eve" -- but, "The Twenty-Five Faces Of Buffalo"?  Seems rather odd; don't you agree?


It's simple Bill.  The other 24 were all banned. Ramm has a bad habit of attacking people personally instead of debating and when he goes too far, he get's his keister kicked out the door.

What Bill has posted in his comments is 100% CORRECT from what the Bible say's. A person is not saved because of baptism. Read your Bible and interpret before making statements/comments that you can't support through scripture.

The Bible also say's in the New Testament that unless we (believers in Jesus Christ) wash each others feet that we will have not part with HIM (Jesus). So, is it also a requirement to wash each others feet in order to be saved? NO! Feet washing is just another way that some people show what Jesus was showing in the Bible, to be humble and a servant of others.

Originally Posted by dark dreamer:
Haldol may not even do the trick. I think maybe he needs shock treatment to jar him out of his fantasy world. Must be awful lonely in there.

-----------------------------

DD,

Dark the daily entertainment on here is therapy for me.

If you fools only knew how much I control the whole bunch of you.

That’s what is funny.

My esteemed colleagues are also entertained.

Bm50, I don’t believe I have ever heard a nice word out of you to anybody.

I just came back from joy’s forum and I was appalled by the hate on that forum and it is led by you.

Most everyone over there is drunk or on drugs. I just cannot believe the lies and sick perversions represented over there. The very idea of plotting to kill someone over there on that christian forum.

I have reported your death threats to Forumotion. I expect that forum to be closed down soon.


 Semi
 

Originally Posted by okuok:

Bm50, I don’t believe I have ever heard a nice word out of you to anybody.

          ***********************************************

I have........several times.

 

Originally Posted by b50m:

He takes drugs to get rid of THOSE voices!

b, how do you get away with using those smiley faces? I was recently accused of being nasty to people when I use them.

 

Hi semi,

Thanks for the support. Remember when I said I would accept Buff/ramm's apology if he meant it?  OKUOK, is the new Buff/ramm.

 

As for the face, I meant to be nasty. LOL  I don't know semi, I don't use them a lot.I think the plain smile     is an agreement or peace face as I see it.  I like the 'cool' one.  The rest are more 'in your face' especially the crazy one just for ramm.   If you want to use one, go for it.

Originally Posted by b50m:


 Semi
 

Originally Posted by okuok:

Bm50, I don’t believe I have ever heard a nice word out of you to anybody.

          ***********************************************

I have........several times.

 

Originally Posted by b50m:

He takes drugs to get rid of THOSE voices!

b, how do you get away with using those smiley faces? I was recently accused of being nasty to people when I use them.

 

Hi semi,

Thanks for the support. Remember when I said I would accept Buff/ramm's apology if he meant it?  OKUOK, is the new Buff/ramm.

 

As for the face, I meant to be nasty. LOL  I don't know semi, I don't use them a lot.I think the plain smile     is an agreement or peace face as I see it.  I like the 'cool' one.  The rest are more 'in your face' especially the crazy one just for ramm.   If you want to use one, go for it.

-----------------------------------

Bm50,

How does it feel to be trapped in that body?

Waking up every morning with an ugly scowl on your face, grinding your teeth while contemplating who you are going to hurt first that day. You must lead a miserable life. At one time or another you have jumped on every single member on this forum and have run off scores of members. Your original screen name of Little Mean Mama then LMM until you were kicked off and now you are b50m is a poor commentary for a personality. Now you are the leader of Joy’s posse over there on the Alabamian Forum inciting a mob to kill me. Soon you and Ms. A may be lodged in Tutwiler. I hope your in-house is capable in criminal defense.

Originally Posted by okuok:

-----------------------------------

Bm50,

 Now you are the leader of Joy’s posse over there on the Alabamian Forum inciting a mob to kill me. Soon you and Ms. A may be lodged in Tutwiler. I hope your in-house is capable in criminal defense.

 

 

Are you serious!!! to think someone is plotting to kill you?

You are demented!

go away gus, change filters in something, this forum is for the intellectuals.

 

Actually Fire I like puf and wouldn’t have her indicted for the crime. She is an innocent victim over there since she sold her soul to the black sheep. You on the other hand should do some time but then who would carry on your participation at THE CONNECTION and the guest articles for shoaled pukes? The world would miss your old butt too much.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×