Question #1:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your article on water-baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism. You
confirmed my conclusions. I do not sense, and have not sensed, that the
Holy Spirit is telling me to get water-baptized. I confirmed that
water-baptism was not a requirement of salvation, but I also strongly
felt, based solely on Scripture, that it was not required at all. Any
idea why this is such a difficult issue?
Thanks! In Christ.
PS I am trying to find a biblical church that emphasizes Justification
by faith in Christ, the infallible and inerrant Word of God, God's
Grace, God's love, confession of sins, and following God, rather than
entertainment, psychology, sports activities, denominational
de-railings, the opinions of the preacher, guilt, intimidation, and
money-grubbing.
This is not easy to do! Any ideas?
Response #1:
Glad to hear that you have found these materials helpful. True
baptism of the Spirit versus ritual water baptism has been a thorny
issue in the Church since the apostles, as we see from 1st Corinthians
and the Book of Acts. By the time of the so-called "apostolic fathers",
there were already many strange practices developing around water
baptism (cf. some of things mentioned in "The Shepherd of Hermes"), a
good indication of the fact that the first of the seven Church ages to
follow the ministry of the great apostles of the Lamb (i.e., Ephesus;
see the link:
“Ephesus, the Era of Transition”) was weak in the area of putting
the Word of God first (resulting in problems ever since). It also shows
how sentimental activities become established rituals, and then are
elevated to the status of doctrines, even though they have little or
nothing to do with scripture.
The reformers are responsible for part of the problem as well, although
they can hardly be blamed, at least vociferously. To a certain extent
they had no choice but to define themselves and their teachings in
opposition to Rome, and in Roman doctrine water baptism is "big
medicine", essentially “magic” without which you can't get into God's
grace. Protestants went basically two ways, either reducing water
baptism again to a ritual for infants (although they never completely
"de-mythologized" it), or making it an important rite of passage for
adults who had personally believed in Christ. Both of these approaches,
while better than what the Roman church teaches, have their problems,
the former skewing church practice away from learning the truth of
scripture and back toward empty ritual (or at least anchoring it there),
while the latter has tended, in a sort of backwards way, to make water
baptism seem even more important for those who believe in the truth of
being born again by grace through faith - because it is a ritual that an
informed adult undertakes (so there's lots of room for guilt and fear to
work their will here).
Thus water baptism is one of the many "ball-and-chains" that elements of
the church visible have been dragging along for centuries and have
sought to place around the ankles of good hearted believers. The best
that can be said for it is that most genuine believers over the years
have either been water-baptized without their knowledge as infants, or
as relatively new believers in relative ignorance and under group
pressure. And once it's over, it's over. However, believing
water baptism to be important is a problem. For one thing,
as your e-mail suggests, it obscures the importance of the baptism of
the Spirit and has also been responsible for many mis-understandings
about that key doctrine.
A person with absolutely no prior contact with Christianity who spent a
good deal of time trying to figure this issue out from the scriptures
alone would almost certainly come to balance out the more difficult to
interpret passages of the book of Acts with the fact that John and then
Jesus focus on the coming baptism of the Spirit as what is really
important, and that this is also the key focus of all the New Testament
epistles (where water baptism is only mentioned negatively:
1Cor.1:10-17; 15:29; and 1Pet.3:21). The last passage mentioned is
frequently misunderstood (see the link:
“The Baptism which now Saves You”), but it shows that throughout the
apostles' ministry they were having to de-emphasize the water baptism
that was still going on (i.e., "symbolizes" = not water [which is not in
the text], contra NIV et al.). These and all the other epistle-baptism
passages show what one would have to conclude with careful, unbiased
exegesis anyway, that the words "baptism/baptize" in the epistles
invariably refer to the baptism of the Spirit. And how would this not be
true? John foretold it as the next phase (Matt.3:12). Jesus promised it
as the empowerment to come (Jn.14:15ff.; 16:5ff.). Pentecost revealed
the power and importance of it for the gospel beyond any doubt (Acts
2:1-13). And the things that makes the Church as it is preached and
described in the epistles stand out are the power, the gifts, the
enlightenment of the Spirit - not a water ritual. It is really no great
leap then, when reading the scriptures without bias and preconceptions,
to understand Matthew 28:18-20 in the same way. After all, how could
water baptism put us "into the Name/Person" of the Trinity - unless it
really were magic, something few Bible-oriented Christians are even
willing to entertain (see the link:
“Baptism
and Salvation”).
The essential thing is this: the baptism of John was a water ritual "of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4). Nowhere in the New
Testament is another kind of water baptism described other than John's
water baptism, and that is critical. How many people who preach/teach
that water baptism is necessary are talking about John's baptism? No,
they invariably use the "formula" of Matthew 28:19, and have it mean
something mysterious (and confusing). The problem is that the idea of
eis to onoma that verse meaning "under the authority of" instead of
“into the Person of” is dubious when reading the Greek text,
unparalleled elsewhere, and, well, what exactly would that mean? If it
is "into", then it's magic, but the Spirit's uniting of every new
believer with Christ, a doctrine well-known from the New Testament
epistles. If it is "under the authority of", then what precisely does
this new water baptism purport to achieve or effect? On the other hand,
if Jesus is talking about the Spirit, as He invariably is everywhere
else, then what we have here is the apostles acting as intermediaries of
the gospel (as they do and are commanded to everywhere else), the result
of which is the baptism of the Spirit (just as it happened to Cornelius
and his household: Acts 10:27-48). It took time for Peter and Paul to
see that there was no need for the water at all (if we receive the
Spirit, then of course we have turned to the Lord in repentance and
believed), but that is certainly not unparalleled either: the book Acts
is filled with examples of the Church learning what this new gift and
new age meant and how to handle things as a result.
I suppose to answer your question a bit more succinctly, the reason this
issue has been so difficult is, in a nutshell, guilt and manipulation.
And I believe there is also much in your observation about the
"stumbling stone". There are many things in scripture which are not as
clear in an initial reading as we should prefer. But then, if it were
too easy, we wouldn't need teachers (so authority would be lost), and we
wouldn't need much faith. Getting to the truth of the Word of God takes
discipline, effort, preparation, dedication . . . and a lot of faith.
But we find that not only is our faith built up thereby, but our hope
and our love as well. We find that by persistence in something that is
not easy we become better Christians in every way, growing closer to God
day by day, and learning what our Lord is really like. He taught in
parables for just this reason after all, to separate those who were
truly dedicated to following Him from those who were just interested in
entertainment. We should all aspire to . . .
"Justification by faith in Christ, the infallible and inerrant Word of
God,
God's Grace, God's love, confession of sins, and following God"
VERSUS
"Entertainment, psychology, sports activities, denominational
derailings,
the opinions of the preacher, guilt, intimidation, and money-grubbing"
. . . . . as you so crisply put it! My prayers go out for you that you
may find a church that emphasizes all the right things and eschews all
the wrong things. As you say, it's not easy to find. Trying to help
answer this last question of yours was the genesis for this ministry
many years ago - I didn't know of any churches that fit the bill, so at
least I wanted to be able to point to a source of spiritual food that
would contribute to spiritual growth (even it wasn't contained within
four walls). I am glad to hear that this ministry is at least
contributing to your good efforts in that direction.
Yours in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob Luginbill
Question #2:
Hi. I was reading the Q and A about, re *Is water baptism required for Christians today? I followed along the reply with interest. I have many comments but as this email may I be so bold as to say/ask, " As Christians, Jesus is the Way the Truth and The life, so we should follow Him and DO as He has done. Jesus was baptized and so should we be and in the same way." Is there a chat/forum on your site? Cheers.
Response #2:
There is no chat/forum at Ichthys, but I am happy to respond to your
comment.
I entirely agree that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. We are
indeed as Christians supposed to follow His example, to walk in His
footsteps as He gave us an example. But, clearly, that does not mean
that we can or even should take this principle so literally as to do
everything in exactly the same way He did - that is not what scripture
means.
To take but a few of many examples, first of all, Jesus was celibate and
never married. Are we required to follow Him in this? That would be a
good thing in many ways if we were all capable of it, but scripture
allows that this is not possible for most of us (1Cor.7:1-2). Surely we
can take from His example of self-sacrifice in this regard the principle
of considering God and the kingdom of God and the work pertaining
thereto to be more important than our own concerns, but forgoing
marriage is not meant to be the way that most of us demonstrate our
commitment. Now there are some people/organizations who over-react on
this point (one thinks of the prohibition for Catholic priests). For
those who follow Jesus, spiritually celibacy, staying away from
spiritual unfaithfulness, is even more important than material celibacy.
Secondly, Jesus went to the cross to die for our sins; He was crucified
for us. Now we are to "take up our cross daily" and follow Him
(Lk.9:23), and in some instances this may mean martyrdom (or even
crucifixion - that, at any rate, is one tradition about the way that
Peter died, though there is no biblical evidence for it). But even if it
is our lot to die for the Lord, we could never ever die as He did - He
is the only One who was ever qualified to atone for the sins of the
world. Impossible to follow Him here in a literal sense (and unnecessary
too - His death for us was efficacious for the forgiveness of all sins).
Now there are some people/organizations who over-react on this point
(one thinks of the recent trend in South America to hang oneself on a
cross - though as far as I know no one who has done this has yet expired
in the process, let alone done anything that God would ever consider a
propitiation for sin). So I think that our "losing of our lives" for the
Lord is spiritual rather than physical - we put Him and the kingdom
first (Matt.16:25).
Thirdly, Jesus performed many miracles, of every sort. As far as I
recall, though the apostles duplicated many of His miracles, He was the
only One who ever gave sight to the blind. In any case, though I am not
sure what your position is on the working of miracles, few people would
proclaim that they are capable of doing all of the miracles that Jesus
did, or to the degree that He did them. We can only function as members
of His Body, the Church, according to the specific gifts we have
received from the Spirit (cf. 1Cor.12:1-11). Now there are some
people/organizations who over-react on this point (one thinks of any
number of groups who make great claims to miraculous activities), but it
seems to me that the "greater things than these" we are meant to do are
in the spiritual rather than the material realm (Jn.5:20).
One could go on, but I think the point is fairly obvious: following Him
spiritually rather than literally is what is important. For our Lord
Jesus is clearly different from us in many ways. He is Savior of the
world; we are the saved. He is the Head; we are the Body. He is the
Bridegroom; we are the Bride. He and His life were unique in every way,
and because of Him we have been born again into a new life, and eternal
life.
And His baptism was unique too. He is the only One whom John tried to
prevent from being baptized. Why? Because John knew full well that Jesus
was "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29). Jesus had
no sin, but the baptism of John was a baptism "of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4; Lk.3:3). Jesus had no need of repentance,
for He had no sin. Beyond all argument, therefore, what the baptism of
John meant for Jesus was different from what it meant for everyone else.
Jesus went down into the water where the sins of the world had been
symbolically washed off, and took them symbolically upon Himself. And
when He came up (a picture of the resurrection just as the baptism was a
picture of the cross), the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father
proclaimed His good pleasure with the Son and His work (Matt.3:16-17; a
preview of the ascension and session). It is impossible for us to
duplicate the symbolism of Jesus' water baptism by our own water
baptism, because His water baptism presaged His death for us on the
cross. That is why He says prior to His suffering “I have a baptism to
undergo”, speaking of His sacrifice on the cross (Lk.12:50; cf.
Mk.10:38).
This last point about John's baptism is important from another
perspective as well. John's baptism was, as quoted above, "for
repentance and forgiveness" and his ministry had the purpose "to prepare
a people ready for the Lord" (Lk.1:17). In other words, John's baptism
was looking forward to the ministry of the Messiah and to the cross. Now
that the Messiah has come and the cross is a reality, it does beg the
question of why we now do not have to do exclusively with the baptism of
the Spirit, for John said that he baptized with water for repentance,
but the Messiah would baptize "with the Spirit" - and indeed this has
been the case since Pentecost (Matt.3:11).
My point here is that the only water baptism in scripture is the baptism
of John. But I have never heard of a group that water-baptizes that has
that symbolism clear, i.e., water washes away sins as the coming
sacrifice of the Messiah would do (and that is that). Inevitably, some
other non-biblical symbolism is always present in the way water baptism
is used and represented by all groups I am aware of who practice it, so
that ipso facto it must be being used in a scripturally inappropriate
way. One searches the scriptures in vain for any other water baptism -
the New Testament epistles are filled instead with a non-water baptism:
the baptism of the Spirit.
Really, its not a question of "doing what Jesus did" when it comes to
water baptism. Instead, it's a case of "doing what we've always done
just because we've always done it". I have no problem with that - when
it is biblical. Up until Augustine's day, the Church was still
squabbling over whether to baptize babies, when baptism should take
place, what it meant, etc. And that is still the case today. I have to
believe that if the case for the need for a new post-cross water baptism
was that clear, there would never have been, could never have been such
confusion.
As it is in fact, the true picture that scripture gives is
clear: of a single water baptism for preparation, that of John, which is
entirely symbolic, followed by a very real baptism with lasting effects:
the baptism of the Spirit given as a gift for the Messiah's victory (His
baptism of the cross), a powerful and real event for every believer when
they believe (with the book of Acts documenting the transition from
ritual to reality: Acts 19:1-7; cf. Acts 10:44-48).
We should not really even be asking “what would Jesus do?”, but “what
does Jesus want me to do?” That is what our Lord always did in following
the will of His Father and ours at all times. Jesus wants us to follow
Him in truth (cf. Jn.17:15-19). And the only way I know to do that is to
learn what is really true according to the Bible, believe it, and live
it (and help others do likewise).
Please see also the following links:
The baptism of the Holy Spirit as distinct from speaking in tongues.
An Extended Conversation about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Sin, Baptism, and the Book of Revelation.
Does baptism play a role in being born again?
How important is
baptism?
In the One who is the only way, the truth, and the life, our dear Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob Luginbill