Question #1:
Would you be open to discussing your views on baptism with me? my true and only
sincere goal is to please the Lord, but I am confounded by the vast differences
in doctrines of all type by people who call themselves "Christians". I am
personally simply trying to seek Him with all my will. And lately my own life
has been difficult because of the fact that so many people even in one
congregation can differ on important topics of faith.
Please let me know. i just want a (relaxing?) conversation about a serious
topic...No accusations desired or intended. But I want to learn more whatever
direction that takes either of us...let me back up and preface what I said with
the fact that i only emailed you because I've been reading your marriage
questions and find you seem to be very logical in your interpretations (for lack
of better word). so a discussion with you seemed like it may be worthwhile...
Response #1:
Good to make your acquaintance.
I have had occasion to write reams about water-baptism in the past. Much
of this is posted at the site (links below). So I would be very
surprised if there is any aspect of this question which you won't find
already "in print", but one never knows. Do have a look at the links and
do also feel free to write me back about any questions you may have on
the topic:
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Greetings fellow believer,
Your article on water baptism was so good. Teachings on water baptism
have driven me from many churches because the truth is very apparent to
me. Your article confirmed what I was feeling on the matter based on
what I had read in the bible. My current and previous pastors both seem
to put a premium on water baptism and make it seem as if it is a
necessary ingredient for one's Salvation. This is a dangerous teaching
in my mind. These are such great guys though and I care about them very
much, so now I am trying to accept that they may not fully understand
the scriptures or are convinced they are being obedient to how they
understand the scriptures. I know there were arguments among apostles
and other disciples in the bible and they managed to work out their
differences and love one another. I don't want to keep being compelled
to leave church because the teachers aren't perfect, but I also don't
accept when people equate water baptism with Salvation. Your article was
so well written and spot on accurate in my estimation. I don't know who
you are, but it was the first article that came up in my web search and
I was so pleased because I was praying about this issue this morning
looking for confirmation regarding what I felt the Spirit had revealed
to me.
I get a little down when I speak with my brothers or sisters about this
topic and they immediately stonewall me without offering biblical
evidence for their position on water baptism. I see that you have a
website with a large selection of studies. I plan on reviewing them as
it appears to me from your water baptism study that you see the Truth.
I hope you have a blessed day!
Response #2:
Good to make your acquaintance. For more information about myself and
this ministry, please see the link:
"About Ichthys".
I'm very pleased to hear that these materials have been helpful. You
mention, "your article"; I have written quite a lot on this subject – it
is a concern to many – so I will give you a number of other links:
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
Please be of good cheer. The Lord certainly honors your determination to get to
the truth. In our lukewarm era of
Laodicea that is a rarity (see the link). I certainly pray that you will
expand that desire into all areas of the truth so as to grow and earn
the eternal rewards the Lord wants you to win (see the link), and you are
very welcome to all of the materials at Ichthys in so doing. Please visit or
write any time.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
All I can say is "Wow!" I feel like I have stumbled upon a gold mine. I
am excited to dig in to your studies. I don't want to pester you, but if
I run into something I can't understand, would it be alright if I email
you? My Grandfather was a huge proponent of "Rightly dividing" the Word,
so much so that he attempted to write a book called "The Rightly Divided
Bible". Unfortunately he was not a very talented writer and he could not
get his work published. His name was Harry Wellington. It isn't likely
that you know him. Thank you for freely sharing your body of work. I am
hoping it helps me gain a deeper understanding.
Thank you sir, and God bless you
Response #3:
Good to hear that a love for the Word runs in your family (cf.
2Tim.1:5).
I would be delighted to hear from you. Do feel free to write any time.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
This question has been on my mind for a while and I searched the bible
but can't find an answer. Who has the authority to baptize? Is it only
Pastors? I know there were godly men and disciples who baptized people
in the bible, but that's all the information I can gather. Thanks in
advance!
God Bless you and your ministry,
Response #4:
Actually, the only legitimate baptism for the Church is the baptism of
the Spirit, and everyone receives that baptism supernaturally when they
believe. Water baptism was a Jewish ritual, "John's baptism", a rite
which anticipated the coming of the Messiah and was designed to "make
ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk.1:17). This was a baptism of
believer-repentance, not a rite to commemorate or (a far worse heresy)
"produce" the new birth; all in Israel were supposed to be believers
already (though many were not) and the majority of those who came to
John in good faith were believers already being led back into fellowship
to prepare for the Messiah's ministry.
Water baptism in the book of Acts is confined 1) to the very first few
years of the apostles' ministries, and 2) mostly done for Jews, those
close to Judaism (Samaritans), and proselytes (such as Cornelius and his
gentile friends). That is to say, it was a way of bringing that
contemporary generation who had known about John's ministry into the
fellowship without distinction from those who had actually been baptized
by John. The only place we know of where gentiles were baptized with
water is Corinth, and even here that is probably because Paul (even at
the time) was thinking of the Church still more in Jewish terms, and the
church at Corinth was composed originally of a large percentage of Jews,
having begun as was common in the synagogue there. Later on, however,
Paul says that he regrets having made use of that ritual (1Cor.1:17),
and there is no command to baptize gentiles with water anywhere in the
New Testament (Matt.28:19-20 is talking about the baptism of the Holy
Spirit; the word water is not present; note also that the Jerusalem
counsel says nothing about water-baptism in their letter to the
gentiles: Acts 15:23ff.).
I have written a great deal about this issue because of the
pervasiveness of the problem (it is a dangerous legalistic thing to
engage in at best since it proclaims a Messiah not yet come). Here are
some links to some of the more recent postings on the subject:
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Dear Bob,
I know you've dealt with this 100s of times, but I have a question I
didn't see on the web site. I recently had an old friend visit that I
haven't seen in years. Over the course of time, he's come to believe
that water baptism is necessary for salvation. I don't, but I told him I
would look into it.
In the new testament, I see five types of baptism. The "baptism of
John," the baptism of the spirit, the baptism of fire, the baptism of
repentance and the baptism of death. The baptism of John logically
refers to water baptism. The others are self explanatory. What remains
are the many references to baptism with no qualifiers. My question is,
is there anything in the Greek that would restrict the apostles many
acts of (unqualified) baptism to water? Could that not also mean
bringing people to Christ? Ergo, the spirit baptism mentioned by John
the Baptist (Matthew 3:11?)
Baptism, as I understand it is purification. Water is symbolic, the
spirit is actual. Acts 19:2 suggests to me that water baptism is a waste
of time and, in fact, something of a rejection of Christ's work on the
cross. Am I off base on this?
I hope I expressed this rationally.
Thanks
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Response #5:
Good to hear from you, my friend. I find myself mostly in agreement with
what you have said here. I think if you read some of the more recent
postings on the subject you will see that indeed I also believe that
continued water-baptism is not only ignorant but by its symbolism
proclaims a Messiah not yet come – because all water-baptism is John's
baptism which was to "make ready" a people to receive the Messiah
(latest link: "Baptism:
Water and Spirit VII").
As far as Acts is concerned, it's important to remember that the last
mention of water is somewhere around the early 50's (Acts 18:8); this is
roughly more than half-way through the book of Acts but still in the
early days of the apostolic period (which ends ca. 68 A.D. with the
death of the last apostle, John). So it's easy – without giving the
matter much thought or research – to assume that "there's a lot of
water-baptizing going on in Acts" when it's not that simple. Also, all
such baptizing takes place within a Jewish or proselyte milieu – it was
never meant for gentiles per se.
The contrast John uses as does our Lord is the distinction between John
"baptizing with water" and the Lord "with the Spirit" (Matt.3:11;
Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16; Jn.1:33; Acts 1:5). So without an indicator to the
contrary, we rightly conclude that all instances of baptism in the
epistles which are not otherwise qualified have to do with the Spirit.
That is so in any case.
The proof of this pudding is in individual verses in their contexts, so
please feel free to ask about any that give you pause. There is only
"one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5 – Spirit baptism. The Israelites were
"baptized into Moses" – an identification baptism (one of the exceptions
but not a "water baptism").
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Thanks, Bob,
In reading the link, you reminded me of the criminal next to our Lord on
the cross. Very helpful. Thank you.
As it turns out, my friend is an Elder in the Church of Christ and was
proselytizing quite vigorously on the requirement of water baptism.
Since I long ago accepted that water baptism is invalid, I couldn't
remember all the reasons why, so I didn't have a good response. I told
him I would consider his arguments. Now, I pray that the Holy Spirit
will guide me in saying the right things as I respond. I don't have a
particularly good track record of evangelizing and it's unlikely he
would accept my rebuttal.
Thanks again.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Response #6:
You're most welcome.
Some folks are gifted at verbal sparring and some are not – it's not a
spiritual thing. For one thing, people such as you describe are probably
not likely to be convinced just because someone makes a strong
apologetic argument and good debate points. Sometimes a simple question
which cuts to the quick of the issue and exposes the problem with their
thinking is the best approach since it may get them to think – if only
later. E.g., "Isn't salvation 'by grace through faith' alone?"
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Dear Bob,
You were absolutely right when you said I would probably not get
through. I asked, "Why did John the Baptist say that Christ would
baptize with the holy spirit and fire? Why did Christ say that all who
believed in him should not perish? Why is water baptism referred to as
'The Baptism of John' in contrast to the bare word baptism? How did
Hebrews 6:1-2 fit in?" Of course, some other questions were involved as
well, but I tried to concentrate on questions. I never got an answer to
the first three and the question on Hebrews bypassed the baptism issue
as though it were given and I got a mini-sermon, instead, on spiritual
maturity.
I'm not criticizing him. As you know, I can sometimes ask opaque
questions but I thought the first three were reasonably explicit.
Perhaps they were the wrong questions. This clearly isn't my calling.
In any event, thanks for the advice. Perhaps one of those questions will
stimulate some thought at least.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Response #7:
Nicely done!
If our ministry efforts were to be judged by the responsiveness of our
audience, nearly all of the Old Testament prophets would have to be
considered failures! Our job is to put forward the truth – accepting it
or rejecting it is the responsibility of the recipient.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi Dr. Bob.
I want to thank you for your teaching ministry; that your standards of
study and professionalism are high and so the depth you are able to
bring to the topics is deep. Thank you for that.
In studying your portion on Christ, I have been led into an
understanding of exactly what Jesus went through here on earth in that
every single decision required perfection from his birth to ascension.
Obedience to God. That it was the three hours of darkness that he truly
suffered for our sins. Jesus has become like a “friend” or more human
like; not just a cut out two dimensional picture or idea that we believe
because we are Christians. But a Person. A person I respect greatly and
not just because he was also God.
In looking at the Holy Spirit I can see, in detail, that he is the agent
of everything. We can’t come to God or believe in God without the agency
of the Spirit. Once again, a very in-depth study.
How did people of the Old Testament come to know God? Without the same
functioning of the Holy Spirit or was it the same before as after?
Thank you for the effort and time and depth that you put into your
ministry and that it is free and available to all who
want to know more about the spiritual things of life.
Response #8:
Thanks for the encouraging email! I greatly appreciate it. That's the
purpose of all godly Bible study, after all, to draw closer to Jesus
Christ.
As to your question, all believers today have he Holy Spirit through
Spirit baptism which takes place automatically and supernaturally when
we believe (Rom.8:9); so the Spirit is "in us" now, and that is an
incredible blessing and advantage (which, sadly very few believers today
take even slight advantage of); but even before the glorification of
Christ (cf. Acts 1:4-5), He was always "with you" before this gift of
His baptism (Jn.14:17). God has never allowed any believer to lack the
support necessary to learn and live the truth. Just look at the example
of David and you will see that most believers today with the Spirit
don't come close to his spiritual accomplishments – and because of his
willingness to respond to the truth he was given the Spirit, a special
unction of the Spirit, though it was not permanent as our indwelling is
(which is why he prays for it not to be removed: Ps.51:11). Please see
the link:
The Spirit's Ministry before the Cross and Resurrection of Christ (in BB
5).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #9:
On a different thought, may I ask how you would explain the meaning of Matthew 28:18-20 to those who are traditionally interpreting it as a local church authority received from Jesus Christ to evangelize the world (do mission work/church planting), water baptize those who believe so that they become local church members, and teach-how-to-serve-the-Lord in the church/do discipleship program to them. The usual explanation is based on the 3 verbs which are commands, imperatives - preach, baptizing, teaching. I have an idea on how to explain this passage based on the articles at ichthys particularly about baptism. If it is not too much to ask, please explain the passage.
Response #9:
Then Jesus came over and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me, so go and make all nations my followers by baptizing them [with the Spirit] into the Person (i.e., “name”) of the Father and [into the Person] of the Son and [into the Person] of the Holy Spirit, and by teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
Matthew 28:18-20a
This is indeed our Lord's mandate to His Church for its proper operation going
forward, and I would agree that the three verbs in verse 19 contain the essence
of that mandate. The first verb in question, "make [all nations my] followers",
is a main verb, the other two are participles which split up the command into
its two essential or component parts while the main verb, "make disciples", sums
up the mandate. The first participle, "baptizing", is speaking about
evangelizing which leads to the reception of the Spirit: His baptism results
from our giving of the gospel to those who respond. The second participle,
"teaching", comprises everything that should happen next after a person becomes
a believer: spiritual growth and progress through the truth of the Word of God.
So this passage is a wonderful gift from our Lord, breaking down for us what it
is most important for us as believers to do. We believers are to be followers of
Christ as "disciples" (literally, "learners"), and our role after salvation is,
through our gifts and the ministries He assigns, meant to help others also
through the truth, to become believers (at which point they are baptized into
Him by the Spirit = "baptizing") and to become spiritually mature (through
"teaching" them the Word of God). And while not everyone has a teaching gift
(evangelism for the "baptizing" part or pastor-teacher for the "teaching" part),
all true spiritual gifts and truly Christ-given ministries in His Church
contribute to this bipartite process of leading to salvation and furthering
growth after salvation – either directly or through supporting ministries which
do.
They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Acts 14:21-22 NIV
The problem is the way this passage is twisted by those who have little interest
in the truth. First, for many such persons and groups, "make disciples" has been
corrupted from its true meaning (a "disciple" in Greek and in Latin, the source
of our English word, is a "student" – one dedicated to
learning/believing/following the truth) to a legalistic monstrosity wherein
accommodating to the legalistic church/group and being accountable to that
church/group's false standards while being manipulated by other members who take
away a Christian's free will in "judging" them is usually what is meant –
exactly the opposite of what
a true disciple of
Christ should aspire too, namely, being able to walk with Him in the truth
independent of Pharisaical rules or only to be an "eye servant" to the
judgmental interference of others (see the link).
Second, all wrong-headed groups want to find physical water in Matthew 28:19.
But there is no water present in Greek or in any English version I've ever seen.
We know (or ought to) that baptism is not just with water. John baptized with
water. But John as recorded in this same gospel said very directly, "I indeed
baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is
mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt.3:11; cf. Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16; Jn.1:33). How is
it, then, that all such churches/groups want to go backward to what John did –
ignoring what he said – when this passage at the end of this gospel is spoken by
our Lord? He is speaking of the Spirit, and that also explains the further
comment, "[baptizing them] into the Name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit". No one can be baptized "into" a spoken name; but we
believers are indeed baptized "into" the person of Christ – and so also into the
persons of the Father and the Spirit when we believe (that is what "Name" means,
the Person Himself since it stands for the Person). We are one with Christ
through the baptism of the Spirit and thus come to be "partakers of the divine
nature" (2Pet.1:4 KJV). See the link:
"The Spirit's Baptism of Believers into Christ".
Third, "teaching" means teaching. But almost without exception all such
churches/groups do little actual teaching, even though this is the last part of
the command and for that reason of the utmost importance. They substitute
initiation into (often cultic) rites, false and legalistic regulations which are
not scriptural, and all manner of folderol which has nothing to do with the
Bible, the source of the truth they are supposed to be teaching. In other words,
all such churches/groups misuse this passage as support to do all the wrong
things they are doing and yet avoid doing the right things our Lord tells us to
do here.
Question #10:
This is with ref. to you Q&A titled “Is Baptism Essential for
Salvation?”.
There are some in our church (including myself) who have been water
baptized by immersion while there are others who have not done it. The
first group of people is telling the second group that they will not be
saved unless they are baptized in water. I am currently leading this
church. I have already spoken on this subject and explained to them that
water baptism does not save anyone. However, people are asking whether
baptism is necessary at all. I could see that you are holding the view
that water baptism is unnecessary. Can you please clarify the following?
1. Can I tell our church members that water baptism is not necessary at
all? If yes, can you provide some scriptural support that it is not
necessary for us in any sense whatsoever?
2. You wrote “Matthew 28:18-20 is actually also talking about the
baptism of the Spirit.” When baptism of the Spirit is something only God
can give, how could Jesus command the disciples to give it to others?
Sincerely,
Response #10:
I will be happy to give you the gist here and then will point you to some links
where this subject is treated in detail.
In a nutshell, baptism in the New Testament epistles refers to the baptism of
the Holy Spirit: that is the baptism to which John looked forward and to which
our Lord told the disciples to look to. That is the baptism that forms the Body
of Christ and empowers believers to learn the truth, walk with the Lord, and
serve Him according to their Spirit-given gifts. Water-baptism has nothing to do
with any of this. The only genuine water-baptism outside of the Law was John's
baptism, a Law-related ritual designed for the repentance of the Jewish people
of the generation to which our Lord came – all of whom were supposed to be
believers. The water-baptism symbolizes the forgiveness of their sins as they
"come back" to the Lord – thus John's mission was "to make ready a people
prepared for the Lord" (Lk.1:17). Water is continued on only a very few
occasions in the book of Acts, always either to Jewish converts or those closely
related thereto (Samaritans, or gentile proselytes, or mixed congregations which
start in synagogues), and ends long before the apostolic period does. It made
sense for Peter and Paul, e.g., not to "deny the water" to those who knew of
John's ministry and who were part of the generation of Jews (or their close
associates) to whom the Messiah came. But the utility of the continuation of
that ritual ran out quickly and soon began to cause more harm than good (cf.
1Cor.1:13-17) – as has been the case ever since. It is also borderline
blasphemous: John's ritual proclaimed the coming of the Messiah and was meant to
prepare the people to meet Him. But He has now come, He has now suffered and
died for the sins of the world, He has now been raised and ascended to the
Father and awaits the time of return. Being water-baptized sends the message
that He has not yet accomplished these thing upon which the entire plan of God
depends.
As I often say, one of the sure ways that anyone with a lick of spiritual common
sense can see that there is "a problem" with baptizing in water is that no two
people can agree absolutely about the timing, or the method, or the meaning, or
the effect of the ritual. If it were important to do, wouldn't that be clearly
delineated in scripture? But water-baptism is nowhere discussed in those terms
after the coming of the Spirit and His baptism.
"I baptize you with water (i.e., physically) for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11 NIV
(4) And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. (5) For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".
Acts 1:8
So that is another down-side of continuing this obsolete rite of John's baptism,
namely, it takes away from the truly important baptism of the Church, that of
the Spirit.
As to Matthew 28:18-20, the disciples-cum-apostles were intermediaries of the
baptism of the Spirit in the very early days of the Church. They mediated the
baptism on a number of occasions through the laying on of hands, a provision
given to them no doubt to support their authority while the incipient Church was
just being formed (e.g., Acts 8:17). Later, this Spirit baptism would begin to
happen automatically without any apostolic intermediation as the Word spread
finally to the gentiles as well beyond the orbit of Judaism (cf. Acts 10:44ff.).
Even then – and now – however, they and we do play a role in "having people
baptized with the Spirit". That is because when we give someone the gospel and
they respond, they immediately receive the Holy Spirit in every case (e.g.,
Rom.8:9). Thus our Lord's words at the end of Matthew comprise evangelism
("baptizing them" = seeing to it that they are saved and thus receive the
Spirit) and edification ("teaching them"), summing up the job of the Church in
its two fundamental parts.
Here are those links (and they will lead you to many others):
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hello again Dr. Luginbill,
Just wanted to share something that I was shown from a German translation of the
Bible which was translated by Martin Luther.
Acts 22:16
"Und nun, was Zoegerts du? Steh auf und rufe seinen Namen an und lass dich taufen und deine Suenden abwaschen."
Acts 22:16
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."
Does the way that this verse in German is written imply that baptism washes away
your sins? Being a former Catholic, which Luther also was, Luther sometimes mis-translates,
in my view, many verses, probably because of his Roman Catholic background.
Invariably, when people are reading the Bible and see the word "Baptism", they
immediately think it is "water" baptism. In this case, when Romans Catholics
read this scripture, they say, see, here it says that water baptism washes away
sin. (Original Sin), which I have taught in one of the Bible Classes, explaining
that this is a false doctrine pushed by the Roman Catholic church. The reason I
use the words Roman Catholic is because that what they are. As you well know,
Catholic means "universal", but that is not what they are.
We know that this verse is speaking of "Spiritual baptism" which is given when
one is Born-Again, supported by numerous verses, John 3:3,5,7, but not taught or
mentioned in the Post-Modern churches. I preach it because it is biblical. The
people that attend Chapel services and Bible studies are Presbyterians,
Methodist (but not Wesleyan), United Church of Christ, Lutheran, Catholic, and ?
meaning, and some I don't know what they are. They tell me quite often that what
is being taught, they have never heard before and they have gone to their
congregation all their lives. God deserves the glory, not me.
"Get up and call on the Name of the Lord" which appears first in the verse upon
which the emphasis should be placed. But the Roman Catholic church and the
people they mislead, take for granite that they are correct in their
interpretation, after all, the priests are the only one, and the Romans Catholic
church have the only valid interpretation.
The name of the Lord in that verse is important, "God Saves", and when we
believe and confess Him, we are born-again and receive the Holy Spirit.
I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and a number of times and others who have
as well will ask me or wonder about some of the scripture verse read from the
German Bible. It is good for us to discuss these, because we think about what we
were taught when we part of this false doctrine and never questioned it.
Just yesterday, one of the Catholic ladies from our Bible Study stopped by and
asked me "Did I believe in purgatory"? Of course I said no, because , I told her
to really think about what she is asking. I said, the doctrine of Purgatory adds
to the salvation that Jesus bought for us on the Cross, and purgatory says that
His sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient, we have to do something.
As you well know, there are so many, many, many, false doctrines in the Roman
Church, that when I think about them, I am appalled. Sadly, there are many
millions of Roman Catholics who do not have the truth, and will die in their
sin. I just wish that somehow, I could teach them the truth. I don't say that I
know it all, but I know what I know, and would like to share it.
This verse is one of many that are not only misinterpreted by the Roman church,
but also by many millions of Protestant church goers who don't bother to study
to show themselves approved unto God, a workman that does not need to be
ashamed. They need to know "Why' they believe what they believe, not what
someone told them; everyone needs to know why, and on what basis a person
believes what they believe, and many don't have a clue, so sorry to say.
Well, my friend, please pray for me that God will use me to touch many more
lives before I go home. That is my desire and my longing, so that He will be
glorified. I am thoroughly tired with men and women taking credit for some
things they do, when only God is worthy to receive the Glory, for without Him,
we are nothing, absolutely nothing.
I could write for a long time in this email, but I think you know what I am
striving to get across.
Would thoroughly appreciate your comments.
I cherish them much.
P.S. As you have said many times in your Eschatology studies, and it will come
true, no doubt about it, "many shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons." Christianity, as a whole is
despairingly unprepared for the Tribulation. By God's grace I will be.
May God continue to be glorified through the ministry that He has given you.
Your friend,
Response #11:
Always good to hear from you, my friend, and thanks for this very
thoughtful email – and an encouraging one to me too, as it illuminates
your strong faith and deep understanding of the truth (even though it
touches on many problems concerning those who have not advanced in the
same way and to the same degree as you have).
As to Acts 22:16, I have covered the verse previously inasmuch as this
is a common incident people bring up when they have questions or are
trying to advance false positions. I'll say a few things here.
The German translation is inaccurate. In the Greek, "calling on the Name
of the Lord" is linked with "wash away your sins" and not with "be
baptized". That is very important especially in regard to e.g. Romans
10:8-13 where we are assured that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord
shall be saved" (quoting Joel 2:32) – because it is calling on the Name
of the Lord, expressing to Him (verbally or not) the faith that is in
one's heart which saves . . . NOT being water-baptized. This is what
Ananias says, but Luther's translation makes it sound as if "calling"
goes with "be baptized" which is absolutely wrong. No doubt his
incorrect understanding of the issue led him to make this mistake as if
he were helping by making the passage seem more clear rather than
reversing its true meaning. Luther may not have understood the limits of
water baptism, but Ananias clearly did. My
rendering:
"But now, why are you waiting? Get up and be baptized! And wash away your sins by having called upon the Name of the Lord!"
Acts 22:16
Clearly, water cannot wash away sin because water is physical and sin is
immaterial and invisible. Even people who believe (erroneously) that
water-baptism leads to forgiveness cannot seriously think that the
physical water does anything; rather they must be imagining some
supernatural and mystical process whereby participating in this ritual
with some holy person in charge produces the forgiveness by
symbolically "washing away sin". So whether a person has the
correct view or an erroneous view, there can be no question of physical
water being able to do this. And indeed the process of forgiveness is
supernatural, but there is nothing mystical about it. Only God can
forgive sin – and blessedly He does so whenever a person turns to Jesus
Christ in faith (Mk.2:7-11). I cannot forgive your sins if I baptize you
in water or do anything else for that matter, and there is no person on
earth so holy that they have the power to forgive sins; only Jesus
Christ can forgive sins (Matt.9:6; Mk.2:10; Lk.5:24). So only by calling
upon Him can a person have their sins "washed away" . . . by His blood.
That is the symbol. The blood of Christ (a symbol for His work in dying
for our sins) is what cleanses us from our sins (e.g., 1Jn.1:7), and
this is what produces our forgiveness when we "call upon the Name of the
Lord", when, that is, we express in our hearts our faith in Him for
salvation and life eternal. Mixing up these elements in this verse as
the "Luther Bibel" does confuses the sense absolutely.
Secondly, Ananias was Jewish and Paul was Jewish, and both of them lived
in the time of transition between Israel and the Church Age before the
Church had even spread widely to the gentiles. Both of them were well
aware of John's water-baptizing ministry; that ministry was one of
"repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4; Lk.3:3) – for the
Jewish nation. All Jews were supposed to be believers, so the
offer of the Messiah comes to them not as to unbelievers (which
admittedly many of them were) but as believers who need forgiveness –
and many of them were already believers but still needed this ritual
cleansing in order to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"
(Lk.1:17). No doubt at this point, please note, Paul had already been
saved. He had had several days to think about it and we are told that he
was praying (Acts 9:11), and in my view Paul believed immediately when
the Lord appeared to him as evidenced by Acts 22:10 when he asks, "What
shall I do, Lord?". So whatever we may wish to think about the
water-baptism in this passage you ask about (and there is at least a
case to be made that this is Spirit baptism not water baptism as you
will find discussed at the site), it is done to someone who is already
saved. So what is the purpose? The purpose was for Paul to do what all
other Jews of his time had done when they responded to the preaching of
John (cf. his circumcision of Timothy for similar reasons: Acts 16:3).
This water-baptism thus was important . . . for Jews of THAT day. For
gentiles of another day the wrong message is sent entirely by
water-baptism because it proclaims a Messiah not yet on the scene,
forgivable and possibly important in that early day (how was Paul to
minister to other Jews without having responded to John's ministry
himself, the ministry that heralded the Lord he now embraced?), but a
mark of dangerous ignorance if done in our day, and of blasphemy if
connected to salvation in any way.
Thirdly, this is what Ananias said and did. The book of Acts records
what people said and did . . . without commenting upon whether it was
good, bad or a mix of the two, or whether it was something appropriate
only for the unique time and place it was said and done but not
necessarily meant for all time and for all people in all places. The
last caveat is the most important one. Following the day of Pentecost,
for a time believers lived in Jerusalem without working and allowing
those who had means to sell them to support the very small but rapidly
growing seedling of a Church. It was good and right for that one unique
time, but it would be a disaster today and totally unworkable. Nor is it
repeated anywhere later in Acts. But a person without regard to the rest
of scripture or for the proper use of the book of Acts might well
exploit that event as a "proof" that communism is the proper state of
the Church – and some have indeed done just that!
This situation between Paul and Ananias is a "one off" in many ways.
First, we are not apostles in waiting. Secondly, the Lord has not
appeared to us in glory personally. Third, we have not been stricken
with blindness. Fourth, we have not been directed to go to a specific
place and wait. Fifth, a third party has not been detailed by a personal
visit from the Lord to come and minister to us to restore us from our
blindness. And, VERY importantly, sixth, even though we have already
believed in the Lord for some days before the person comes, one thing he
will not be doing for us is mediating the Holy Spirit because we all
already have the Holy Spirit, baptized by Him into Christ when we
believed (e.g., Rom.8:9):
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 9:17 NIV
Ananias puts his hands on Saul/Paul to mediate the gift of the Spirit in
the same way we see happening elsewhere in the very early days of Acts
(e.g., Acts 8:17-19). Only believers can have the Spirit – so Paul was
clearly a believer when Ananias placed his hands on him to impart the
Spirit. But today, as was the case already by the time of Acts chapter
ten, all who believe receive the Holy Spirit immediately without the
need of any mediation (e.g., Rom.8:9). This reception of the Spirit
occurs before or after the water-baptism? It happens before, not
afterward: the water is in verse eighteen, the following verse . . . if
it is water and not Spirit that is meant (I suspect that even if it were
"wet", the purpose was to impart the Spirit as the hands were laid on in
completing the ritual).
And to add a seventh and an eighth difference just for the record (there
are probably many more), both Paul and Ananias were Jewish, and both
lived in the generation and time of John and Jesus' ministries – which
made Paul's participation in John's ritual of water understandable – and
it certainly also made it radically DIFFERENT than any such thing which
purports to be similar today.
I would give you links, but you are well familiar with Ichthys.
Do feel free to write back any time, my friend.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Dear Robert,
Your work on the "Salvation Ministries of the Spirit" is very
insightful.
Not to make it a long biblical referenced discussion, a condensed
resume. Dry-baptism before John the Baptist (Moses - Israel) and
dry-baptism after John the Baptist (Christ - Jew and Believer), would
then be the correct practice; the Holy Spirit's baptism into Christ. The
dispensation for water baptism (John's baptism) for Jews and proselytes
to Judaism had it's specific function and purpose? Even though the
disciples and others were an extension to this practice (Peter in Acts
2:41 and Paul in his early ministry, as examples) not realizing that a
change has come (He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit - Matt.
3:11c). Paul and Peter understood this change (For Christ did not send
me to baptize and Peter proclaiming that we (Jews) will be saved as they
the Gentiles are). Their understanding of the same principle came at a
different time. This new means of baptism is by faith and baptism into
Christ done by the Holy Spirit.
My question: Can a deduction be made that the dispensation of water
baptism (Jews and proselytes to Judaism) was inaugurated by John the
Baptist and concluded by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
Jesus' command to the disciples would therefore not have been a
'wet-baptism' after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This would defy
His own words as Acts 1:4-5!
Hope this is clear enough for you to respond to.
Grace be with you,
Response #12:
As Paul says about the Law:
It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
Hebrews 9:9-10 NKJV
I think if you reflect on it, you will see that characterizing the Law as
concerned with "various washings" is absolutely correct. There are many
occasions and procedures which required ablution, and of course the brazen laver
was filled with water for precisely those sorts of purposes (e.g., Ex.30:19-20).
So John's water-baptism certainly has a parallel in the Law, the reference being
to the symbolic washing away of sin from the believer for resumption of
fellowship (John's ministry was to Israel and assumed the participants were
believers who needed to be restored).
Dry baptism, if you want to put it that way, never loses hold of the metaphor of
water. Those whom John baptized were dunked under the water and came up "clean",
symbolically. Those "dunked" into the Holy Spirit come up wet with the Spirit –
so to speak (He is now in us and characterizes our walk when we are in
fellowship with Him). We know that there is an identification in the first place
because the person is visibly wet. In the latter case, the person – at the
inauguration of this blessing – was clearly "wet" with the Spirit, speaking the
good news to foreigners in their own tongue on that first day of Pentecost.
I certainly do agree with your conclusion in any case. Both John and our Lord
made it very clear that the Messiah's baptism ministry was one of Spirit, not of
water.
"I baptize you with water (i.e., physically) for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11 NIV
(4) And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. (5) For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".
Acts 1:8
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #13:
My question: Reading the description of the temple in New Jerusalem,
(the end of Ezekiel,) I have the nagging impression that I should be
learning something from it other that it and New Jerusalem will be huge.
To date, I don't know what. Can you shed some light for me?
My favor to ask: My friend wrote me again and asked how my study of
baptism was going.
Please criticize and don't be gentle. I'm new at this and need to learn.
This was my response:
----
My investigation into baptism morphed into a general question of the
applicability of Mosaic law. Baptism, as such, is a growth of Levitical
law - or so it seems to me. As I mentioned, John the Baptist is recorded
as saying:
Mark 1:8
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
And then:
Hebrews 7:11,12
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Our Lord said:
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
The key, for me was belief. No mention was made of anything in the Mosaic law
though, at the time, Mosaic law was in full force until our Lord's work on the
cross was completed when He said, "It is finished."
Also here:
Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
No mention here of anything in Mosaic law. That the Apostles did baptize with water for a short while with no mention thereafter suggests they, being human, had a little adjusting to do in accepting the new order of things. Later, Paul rails against false apostles trying to Judaize believers:
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days...
As gentiles, we have four requirements: Keep from things offered to idols, and
from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. (Acts 21:25) Baptism isn't
mentioned or anything else from Mosaic law. That the Eunuch asked Phillip to
baptize him and Phillip agreed seems an isolated example of the transition
phase.
Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews:
Hebrews 6:1,2
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
I could go on at length, but the long and short of it is that water baptism
seems to me to be a "dead work." The danger of this and any other selective
application of Mosaic law lies in relying on a "work" or ritual to ensure
salvation instead of faith in our Lord. I believe that we are, in fact, baptized
with the Holy Spirit when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and
believe his work on the cross and resurrection just as John the Baptist said.
If you have a scriptural reference that indicates a requirement that, after the
resurrection, we are to be baptized with water, please share it because I
haven't found it.
----
I apologize for the length and appreciate whatever insight you can give me.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #13:
The description of the temple in Ezekiel is not of the New Jerusalem.
There is no temple in New Jerusalem (Rev.21:22).
The temple described in Ezekiel chapters 40-43 is the millennial temple.
Its essential structure will be erected under the guidance of Moses and
Elijah during the early days of the Tribulation, but the massive plan
described in Ezekiel will be the result of the Messiah
"building up" the temple (see the link). As to the "what am I
missing?" question, here is how the Lord describes the reason for giving
this elaborate description:
Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection . . ."
Ezekiel 43:10 NIV
The people of Israel have always been a very "hands on" or as I sometime say
"tactile" culture, so that all the paraphernalia of the Law, things which might
make you are or I ask the question, "what am I missing here?", were designed
specifically for the edification of their faith (e.g., Num.15:38; Deut.6:9;
11:20), and this elaborately designed temple is part of the same thing, meant to
remind them of how they are falling short of the glory of God through sin
(Rom.3:23) and to motivate them through this tangible proof of God's glory to
return to Him.
As to water-baptism and legalism, this is quite a good way to approach the
subject in my opinion, and I think you have done a great job (nothing to
criticize); and in terms of length, it strikes me as quite pithy (though
personally as your probably know I tend to write overly long . . .).
There is a great deal in scripture on the subject so one has to be selective.
Given that it is, in my view, impossible to read Romans, Galatians or certainly
Hebrews with even a passing degree of attention and not see that Paul for one
was absolutely opposed to gentiles keeping the Law and definitely to any notion
of Law keeping as having anything to do with spirituality, far less salvation.
So it is best to keep to a few passages but have others at the ready. Here are
two which recently have suggested themselves to me:
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
Romans 7:4 NIV
The reason I particularly like this one for our purposes is that it presents following the Law or following Christ as two diametrically opposed propositions: believers have died to the Law just as to a prior husband and now have a new Husband, Jesus Christ – and you can only have ONE husband at a time; which makes putative Christians who want to follow the Law, whether a little or a lot, adulteresses (cf. Jas.4:4).
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 7:6 NIV
From the same context, this passage makes the point that by Christ's death in
which we have been united through Spirit baptism we have died to the Law. And it
makes the further point that the reason for this is so that we may now live in a
new way, the Spirit's way, rather than in the old way, the Law's way. Again,
these two things are diametrically opposed to each other by Paul, so that no one
can live in and by and through the Spirit while following the Law (cf.
Gal.3:1-7).
Maybe this is why hyper-Messianic groups frequently try to diminish the
authority of Pauline writings. But of course that is merely confirmation of
their heresy because any person or group which rejects scripture a little or a
lot has shown its true colors.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your explanations. The purpose of the description of the
temple was certainly fulfilled in my case. I sometimes, though, get
confused between the new heaven and earth and the millennium and
sometimes wonder if it's relevant for me at this juncture. In a sense,
it makes no difference. If I'm deemed worthy, I'll see it fulfilled.
Thank you for the pointers on the baptism/legalism issue. I expect it
will continue. I got a quick email in which he said he was concerned
about my soul. I could quite honestly say the same about him. I don't
have any serious expectations that I'll sway him in his belief as I'm
sure you've experienced countless times with the emails that come in to
you. Who knows though, something may get through.
It was difficult picking verses in my response to him. I was tempted to
rhapsodize at length, but I was restrained. Your suggested verses are a
great help and I expect I'll be using them shortly. While I wish I was,
I'm just not very good at this sort of thing.
Thanks again.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #14:
For what it's worth, I think you're doing just fine.
Please don't judge your effort by the response of others. First, as Paul
tells us, we shouldn't make any such judgments "before the time"
(1Cor.4:5). This is really all about the Lord. If the truth is rejected,
it is Him those who have no use for it are rejecting, not us (e.g.,
1Sam.8:7; Jn.12:47-50).
Amen! We will "know even as we are known" on that great day to come
(1Cor.13:12).
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hello, Bob,
Thanks for your comforting words. It never feels like I do just fine.
When I lived on the East Coast, the well framed insult was one that
didn't sink in until later that evening. Those days are
long gone, but maybe the principle still applies. Perhaps what I said
may yet have an effect -- later some evening.
I thought the scripture was clear (and I get confused often enough.) I
will say this, though, as you've seen from my earlier emails, shedding
preconceived notions and traditional beliefs can be hard. It colors
everything we read and even sense. My original message shows this. I've
read Ezekiel 43:10 almost too many times to count, yet it never sank in.
This is something I have to work on more diligently.
Thanks for your patience, comfort and tutelage.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #15:
It's my pleasure!
Every believer experiences this, namely, seeing a passage read many
times with new eyes. That is one of the reasons why we should read
scripture daily. Perhaps this is an indication of a teaching gift?
Your friend in Jesus Christ our Lord,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hola, Bob,
Reading every day is a given. Sometimes, after reading your email posts
and following your references, I end up with too much to ponder, but
there are rare days I miss. Seeing things with new eyes happens almost
every time and it still amazes me.
I don't think I'm showing an indication of a teaching gift unless I'm to
teach first grade. But thank you for the compliment. My assumption is
that the Holy Spirit reveals to us what we are capable of grasping -
gradually introducing meat instead of milk. I don't think I'm weaned
yet, unfortunately. I'm reminded of the times our Lord asked the
apostles, "do you still not understand?" I'm still not sure I do.
Your support and encouragement has been a God send. Thank you.
As an aside, I haven't heard back from my baptist friend. Either he's
given up or he's getting out the heavy guns. Time will tell.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #16:
I appreciate your humility. It's a good quality to have – up to a point
(e.g., Num.12:3 compared with Ex.4:10-14).
Feel free to write me any time, my friend.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Dear Bob,
Mark 16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
This seems to be a major justification for the water submersion folks. I always
read this as baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as the disciples were told to wait
in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit.
What have I missed? Is there anything in the original language that would
qualify this in terms of the type of baptism? Am I correct in understanding the
word from which baptism is translated simply means immersion in general?
If this does refer to Holy Spirit baptism as I believe, how would you rebut the
water baptism folks?
Along those lines, there is mention of water sprinkling, as most denominations
practice, in Numbers. If done over the age of consent, would that not be as
valid as total submersion? Assuming, of course, either is valid today. Was not
either form of water baptism symbolic
of the immersion in the Holy Spirit to come?
Thanks
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #17:
Good to hear back from you, my friend.
The gospel of Mark ends at Mark 16:8. Everything else – found in some
versions, notably the KJV – is the result of a latter interpolation . .
. that is to say, someone sticking something in which is not what Mark
wrote and not inspired by the Holy
Spirit (see the link). There are a number of such
interpolations in scripture (famously, the "cast the first stone"
passage and the "Father forgive them for they know not" passage; see the
link), but this one you ask about is perhaps the longest one and the
most dangerous one: because it is replete with all manner of false
doctrines (PLEASE do not start picking up snakes).
On the passages in the Law which deal with ritual cleansing, my answer
is that if ritual cleansing were required for believers of the Church
Age that would possibly be the case. But there is no requirement for any
such thing – or for water-baptism. In fact, participating in made-up
rituals is the very definition of legalism, an extremely dangerous
thing, spiritually speaking. We have been released from the Law, so that
a person can serve the Law or Jesus Christ . . . but NOT both
(Rom.7:4-6).
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hello, Bob,
I can assure you, I don't pick up snakes. In fact, I killed a couple of
rattlesnakes recently copulating in my lane. (Don't want dozens of
babies running loose.) I have been accused of speaking in tongues on
occasion because I mangled the English language so badly though there
was nothing spiritual about it.
I've read what you've said about Mark after 16:8, but it's still an
argument of those who espouse immersion baptism. Your points will become
part of my rebuttal if there's an opportunity for one. After all, and I
can't recall exactly where, with a priesthood change, a change of the
law was required. I can certainly see where adhering to any part of
Mosaic law is rejecting Christ's sacrifice. I'm not sure I understand
why others don't.
This issue may be dead at this point. Perhaps I offended him without
meaning to do so, or better, I gave him something to think about. Only
time will tell. I think I've said all that can productively be said
unless he opens a door for more conversation.
Thanks for babysitting me again and I apologize for sending my questions
at the time you were trying to get the email postings prepared.
Sometimes my fingers leap to action before my brain
engages.
Thank you for your guidance -- again.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #18:
You're more than welcome, my friend.
When you say, "but it's still an argument of those who espouse immersion
baptism", it might be good to point out to them that the Bible is the
only source of faith and practice for Christians. The Roman Catholics
use the Apocrypha to support, e.g., how to get bailed out of a supposed
purgatory, and the Mormons use the Book of Mormon to support all manner
of crazy things, but Christians are not supposed to look to any other
source other than the Bible. Mark ends at Mk.16:8, so that verse is not
in the Bible. Wanting it to be part of the Bible does not make it part
of the Bible. And this is a zero sum question: either it is a part of
the Bible or it is not . . . and it is NOT.
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Dear Bob,
I didn't know about all the other variations on the theme. Thank you, I
think. That may explain some of what I'm dealing with. I'm not sure I
can deal with that very effectively. In my experience, what the Bible
says is of little import to these folks. Some use special translations
that say what they want and some listen solely to priests and never
refer to the Bible. I guess I can only say what I can say and be done
with it. Curiously, in looking at 14 translations, none agree with some
of these people.
Gut instinct says drop it. I've had no direction from the Holy Spirit,
so I guess I can only say what I can say and go on from there. (Maybe I
had direction from the Holy Spirit and didn't recognize it,) but I don't
know where to take it,
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #19:
"For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."
Isaiah 55:10-11 NKJV
Anyone privileged to proclaim the Word should always keep in mind that it is
God's Word, not ours, and that it is the Holy Spirit who does the evangelizing /
persuading, not us. So if we have done our job, we need to remember any results
are of the Lord and for the Lord – and that if there are no apparent results,
that is only what the eye sees. Whatever purpose the Lord had for the delivering
of truth, as in the passage above was met whether we can see it or not.
One thing I have learned and observed many times, however, is that if the person
we are discoursing with does not respect the authority of the Bible, there is
very little point in continuing because it is only in the Bible that we find the
answers to any questions we may have disagreements over. Sometimes this lack of
respect for scripture is subtle – as in people who prefer their own logic, or
the doctrines of their denomination, or the phraseology of their favorite
version (as in our example with the KJV printing the long ending of Mark which
we now know is not a part of the actual Bible). But when any person or group
overtly places their own writings over the Bible and its authority (such as the
RC's, the Mormons, the JWs, etc.), then there REALLY is little point in having a
discussion. We can tell them the truth; we can show them that the Bible supports
our statements – but they have "other authorities" to which they defer. It
usually takes God intervening dramatically for any of these types to change –
and if we are debating with them they are probably "front line soldiers" of the
movement/cult/religion whose hearts have usually long since been
hardened against the truth (see the link).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hola, Bob,
You're quite right, of course, but it's still sad. He was one of four of
us, a rat pack in high school and the only one besides me remaining. He
recently lost his wife to cancer and had to resign as one of the church
elders because he was no longer the husband of one wife. I suspect, from
things he said earlier, that he's a preterist, too.
That I haven't heard back convinces me to drop the discussion.
It seems I get the people you describe rather consistently.
Thanks for your support, patience and good advice,
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #20:
I've never heard that one before! Of course these "husband
of one wife" passages (1Tim.3:2; Tit.1:6) mean, as my old seminary professor
at Talbot, Dr. Christian, once remarked, "one at a time", polygamy being the
problem Paul is addressing here, something not uncommon in the ancient world.
The Lord has a purpose for everything we are doing for Him, so please don't get
discouraged. I'm sure He has all manner of plans for you, my friend. So keep
growing: He uses those who are properly prepared most of all.
In Jesus Christ our Lord,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hello, Bob,
He married his wife right out of high school and never married another. That she
passed on didn't change the fact that he was the husband of one wife. I didn't
pursue it.
I'm not so much discouraged as saddened. I suspect that's something to which I
should get accustomed. So many of these people are basically good in earthly
terms but so indoctrinated as to be unreachable. I have no idea what seeds will
be planted on fertile ground.
Keep growing is all I can do. The more I learn, the more I realize there is to
learn and how far behind I am. To paraphrase an Old German Order expression,
"The further I go, the behinder I get." Simply reading the Bible is a new
experience every night. What I had read many times before is like I never read
it and a new revelation. Does one ever get over that hump?
Thanks for your guidance, patience and support.
Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Response #21:
It's a good point. And I would wager that for these type of places
widowers who have remarried are OK to serve – but they are on their
second wife after all, if that is the way you are looking at it. The
phrase "husband of one wife" is not the same as saying "married". If
that is what Paul had wanted to say, that is what he would have said,
but that is not what he said, because a man can be "married" and be
polygamous. Besides, while remarried widowers would be from one way of
looking at it "husbands of two wives" (just not at the same time –
that's the thing that is problematic), Paul, the one writing this
instructions in the Holy Spirit was not married himself.
These verses, moreover, do not prohibit polygamy but serving in the top
leadership of the church in such cases because of the bad example:
polygamy always leads to trouble (just ask Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon – or anyone else who ever made that mistake).
As far as "getting over the hump", I hope I never get to the point where
reading the scriptures and studying them no longer opens up new horizons
to me every time I do so! The Bible is an endless font of truth and joy
and encouragement in the Holy Spirit, and it's hard to know just how
"wide and long and high and deep" while on this side (Eph.3:18), but on
that great day to come we will "know even as we are known" (1Cor.13:12).
But I would imagine that through all eternity we will never finish
learning new things about God, such is the immensity of His love, grace
and goodness.
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #22:
Good Evening Brother Robert,
I don’t know if you remember me. Perhaps you can recollect our email
exchanges a few years back. It’s been awhile! Hope you’re doing well. So
recently I came across a “Church Of Christ” who teaches in water
baptismal regeneration & told me that the moment I got saved was not
genuine or real, and that I wasn’t really born again because I haven’t
completed the water baptism. I immediately direct their attention to
Acts Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 which show gentiles receiving The Holy
Ghost without having first had water baptism, and they immediately
decontextualize the plain text and start getting into “allegories” and
“representations” - I mean, 1st Corinthians Chp 1:17 absolutely
demolishes this doctrine, but I’d be curious to know your thoughts on
some other scriptures pertaining to water baptism in the Church age as
there seems to have been a clear transition from acts moving forward up
until now, but yet a lot of confusion apparently amongst many churches.
Below is a screenshot from one of the church members to which after I
pointed out Acts Chapter 11 (no water baptism present) - she immediately
said “well Christ hadn’t died yet” - to which that was immediately
refuted (obviously) - and then she recanted her statement and that’s
when she had the pastor contact me. In the screenshot she says “The Holy
Spirit never saved them. The water baptism saved them” - the pastor
finally responded to me (from her phone strangely enough) and then told
me how “so deep” the gospel is. I believe every believer should be
baptized, so I make no bones about that. But to reject what I had
already received and then “really receive Christ” ? - is this a false
gospel to you? Curious to know your thoughts. God bless.
Response #22:
Good to hear back from you, and nice job in your refutation (screen shot
only captured part of it).
I suppose the question I would ask this person / this group would be
"then why bother believing in Jesus Christ"? I mean, if getting
sprinkled with or dunked in water totally or partially saves a person –
like the Roman Catholic church seems to teach – then why bother with
Jesus Christ? Indeed, if a person/group teaches that water saves, then
by definition it has to mean that Jesus does not save.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."
Acts 16:31
For you have been saved by (God's) grace through faith (in Christ); and this did not come from you – it is God's gift. Nor did it come from what you have done, lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Water-baptism is something you do – works. Salvation is something
God does – grace. If you believe in Christ, you are saved
(salvation by grace through faith). If you believe that a ritual saves you, you
are no different from an animist or a Buddhist or a Roman Catholic – and you are
NOT saved.
You cannot serve Baal and God. You cannot believe in water and in Jesus Christ.
So while it is possible that these people are Christians (but not if they have
always believed what they are teaching), at the very least then they are in the
position of the Pharisees who "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men",
neither entering themselves or allowing others to enter (Matt.23:13 NKJV).
As you have seen and understand yourself, there is no verse in the Bible which
teaches that water-baptism has anything to do with salvation (if Mark chapter
sixteen is quoted, you should know that the actual book stops at verse eight;
verse nine and following was
added by unknown persons centuries after Mark was with the Lord and it
contains many lies; see the link). And, importantly, there is ALSO no verse in
scripture which allows – let alone commands – water-baptism for believers after
the early apostolic days. The baptism of the Church Age is Spirit baptism (see
the link: "Baptism: Water and
Spirit VII" and Q/A #13 for Matthew 28:19-20):
"I baptize you with water (i.e., physically) for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Matthew 3:11 NIV
(4) And gathering them together [Jesus] commanded [the disciples] not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father (i.e., the Holy Spirit) "which you heard about from Me. (5) For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit not many days from now".
Acts 1:4-5
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth".
Acts 1:8
The only legitimate water-baptism was John's baptism, a "baptism of repentance"
(Acts 13:4; 19:4) to "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk.1:17
NKJV). It was a ritual for Jewish people who were all SUPPOSED to be believers,
members of the one unique people who all followed the Lord, for the repentance
from all backsliding to make them ready for the coming of the Messiah. But we
are not Jewish (most of us); we are not part of the biblical
nation of Israel constituted by God (it does not exist at present and will not
until Christ returns); and we are not anticipating the Messiah's first coming:
He has already come and died for us all – and has risen from the dead and
ascended to heaven and sent us the Holy Spirit. So we believers all now have the
Holy Spirit (Rom.8:9), having been received baptism of the Spirit when we
believed.
On of the best indications that water-baptism is not currently authorized by God
is the fact that no two groups do it the same way or understand or teach what it
means in the same way – and on the latter point most of them are very confused
if you ask them to explain the details because they either cannot or are aware
that they don't make any biblical sense (as in your experience).
Most Christians churches baptize with water, it's true. They also do not teach
the Bible in any depth, not to the point of anyone attending having a hope of
becoming spiritual mature in many lifetimes of such attendance. But a group that
teaches salvation by water is not in any sense Christian. It may be Mormon. It
may be JW. It may be RC. It may be or be in sync with any number of religions
which teach some sort of eternal life through works – falsely. But it has
nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
And as long as we are talking about scriptures, what about this one?
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1st Timothy 2:12 KJV
Only men who are gifted to do so and who are prepared to do so have any business
teaching the Word of God. Nowadays in most churches there is so little of the
Word of God being taught, and what is "taught" is usually taught with such a
great deal of the leaven of error, that it almost hardly makes a difference.
Almost. But in this case, where salvation is at stake in the argument, it seems
important to point out that this "pastor" cannot be one in God's eyes.
While there may be some value in trying to point out the truth to such
individuals, for the most part I think you will find that they are either
hardened in their beliefs and/or spiritually immature to the point of being
"hard of hearing" when it comes to the truth – so please be careful.
Keep fighting the good fight, my friend!
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #23:
Hey Robert,
Thank you for the insight. You know, Mark 16:16 appears to be an eternal
security verse upon further examination and cautiously, I say with
discernment. Notice the exact words. 16 “He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Notice how it doesn’t say the words, “and is baptized not” - you know
why? Because once baptism of The Holy Ghost takes place, you cannot be
“unbaptized” - which means the only ones left for condemnation in that
end of the verse are unbelievers. I don’t know your stance on eternal
security but I imagine if you’ve read Ephesians 4:30 that lines up with
mark 16:16 in baptism of The Holy Ghost. Interesting. The woman and her
husband would like to come to my house and hear what I have to say. I
ask that if God so wills, that you’d pray for me that I could show them
without eloquence of speech the plain gospel and not try to in my flesh
reconcile them from their falsehoods. I appreciate the ear you’ve given
unto me and I always love hearing from you brother.
God Bless,
Response #23:
You're most welcome – please feel free to write any time.
On the "passage", I hear what you are saying, but to me this is a little
bit like arguing with the Mormons about passages in the book of Mormon,
or with the RCs about passages in the Apocrypha. The point is, that
passage is NOT in the Bible. So regardless of what it might be construed
to mean, it is NOT any kind of message from God. Far from it. It is the
worst kind of thing. A writing which purports to be from God but is not.
That is diabolical in the extreme, and I would stay well clear of all
such falsity.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.