Question #1:
Can a person receive salvation without baptism ?
Response #1:
Salvation is between you and the Lord through the Holy Spirit.
When you put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God become man in
order to die for all of your sins and mine on the cross, you are saved!
"For God loved the world so much, that he gave His only beloved Son, in order that
whoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life."
John 3:16
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."
Acts 16:31
Water-baptism is not even legitimate any more (see the link), and if a person is depending on some work that he/she has done for salvation, then it is no longer of grace and thus not effective.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Bob,
Yeah I definitely agree that being Baptized by the Spirit is greater
than water baptism. And that it’s only the Baptism of the Spirit that
makes us One with the Body and places us in Christ. But are you saying
we shouldn’t partake in water baptism when it was commanded to the 12
Apostles to baptize? The Apostles definitely Baptized with water after
Pentecost.
God Bless,
Response #2:
In fact, there is no water in Matthew 28:19-20 which is speaking of the
Spirit: no human being can place someone else "into the persons of the
Father, Son and Spirit" – which is what our Lord told the disciples to
do in that passage; that is accomplished by the Spirit, making us one
with Christ; that is Spirit baptism, not water-baptism.
There is only one water-baptism, John's. And the few examples of
water-baptism in Acts all relate to Jewish or Samaritan or proselyte
inclusion: all who preceded were baptized by John, so why not these
others who knew of his ministry but who had not obeyed the command? It
was a natural thing to do and was (apparently) not prohibited by the
Spirit. But that temporary allowance to a generation of Jewish believers
now long deceased is a far cry from it being authorized, let alone
mandated, for gentile believers many years after the fact.
I have a great deal on this at the site (most recent link:
Baptism: Water and Spirit
VIII).
Rather than get caught up in this, however, let me say that if you begin
to commit yourself to getting serious about the truth, you're going to
find out a great deal that will open your eyes on many topics. More to
the point, the more truth you learn AND believe, the closer you will
grow to the Lord. That does require accepting the authority of a good
teaching ministry, however. Not absolute obedience, but giving the
teacher the benefit of the doubt instead of the other way around.
Ichthys is not the only place you can learn from (I also highly
recommend Bible Academy).
But no Christian, no matter how smart, can grow by entertaining multiple
"opinions" as if this were an academic exercise. Even someone with the
gift of pastor-teacher, and even if that person has gone a long way down
the road of preparation, has to have a source of teaching until such
time as he is able to feed himself through his own ministry.
You are certainly welcome here, my friend. And I am praying for you.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Bob,
Do you think Peter was confused by what Jesus said when He told the
Apostles to go and make disciples, to baptize them, and teach them? I
don’t doubt that Peter made mistakes like any man. But he was full of
the Holy Spirit when he commanded those who believed to be baptized. I
do believe that it’s one baptism alone that links us to Christ and makes
us apart of His Body and that’s the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But
baptism of water was clearly still commanded. Just like partaking in the
Lords Supper is commanded. These things aren’t for Salvation but are a
remembrance of what Jesus has done for us.
Thank you for the link.
God Bless,
Response #3:
It was appropriate for members of the "John-Jesus" generation to be
water-baptized if they had not already been; otherwise they would/could
be made to feel like second-class believers. That, in my view, is why
Peter offers it to Cornelius and his friends as concession and not a
mandate (Acts 10:47); it's a concession because everyone else
water-baptized so far had been Jewish or closely related or part of the
proselyte community in anticipation of the Messiah – but these were
clearly gentiles by any estimate (and Christ had by that time died for
our sins and been resurrected). Also, water-baptism is never commanded
(the links will make all this clear if you spend the time).
And when you say that "water-baptism" is a reminder of what Jesus has
done, that is a supposition but it's not in the Bible. Communion
certainly is that "remembrance" as our Lord did tell us and that is in
the Bible, commanded by the Lord Himself; but no two people can give you
a consistent, understandable and reasonable explanation of the "need"
for water-baptism (even if they have some pablum rationales). People
only engage in it because it is traditional . . . but so is the
idolatrous worship of saints in the RC church. Water-baptism was John's
God-given means of preparing Israel for the coming of the Messiah. But
now that the Messiah has come, water-baptism is a legalistic ritual. And
a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Bob,
I definitely agree that baptism is being enforced as a legalistic ritual
today and it drives me crazy, since throughout the New Testament it is
clear that we are under Grace and not the law. And it wouldn’t make any
sense for God to hold us under a new law when He has given us His Spirit
instead. And Paul clearly says we’re are sufficient not of the letter
but of the Spirit.
And those that believe in water baptism will agree with me on that, but
they will say Matthew 28 is strictly speaking of water baptism. That
people cannot baptize others with the Spirit, that’s Jesus’s doing.
Whenever someone is commanded to baptize, it’s always with water they’ll
say, because that’s something they can do. They say that Jesus never
commanded the Apostles to baptize people with the Spirit since that’s
Jesus’s job.
And I totally understand what their saying and it makes sense. But I’ll
point out that Paul was never commanded to baptize but to preach the
Gospel. But they’ll say even in the context where that verse is stated
is probably to avoid that division that was being talked about. So
people can’t say they were baptized by Paul and begin to idolize or
worship Paul.
And then I’ll point out Ephesians 4:5 where it states that there’s only
One Baptism. And they’ll say yes there’s only one baptism that connects
us to Christ and that’s the baptism of the Holy Spirit but that doesn’t
eliminate water baptism because that’s a symbol of our Baptism of the
Spirit. They’ll say that it’s not a work that links us to Christ but
it’s a ritual that identifies us with Christ, that we are His and it
glorifies His name.
And they agree that we aren’t saved by works but rather our faith
produces works, showing that it’s not dead faith. And they state it’s
the same thing with water baptism, it’s just a sign of their faith in
Christ. Which they say was commanded by Christ in the Great Commission.
And Peter is also commanding it in Acts. (Acts 2:38, 10:48) So I’m kind
of stumped.
God Bless,
Response #4:
While there is much more detail in the links, I think if you'll consider
these objections carefully you'll see that they are merely rhetorical
and not based on scripture at all:
1) On Matthew 28:19-20, the word "water" is not present in this passage
and anyone who has read the New Testament understands that the words
"baptize" and "baptism" often refer to non-water events, the baptism of
the Spirit – which is what we have here – being the prime but not the
only example.
2) Matthew 28:19-20 says that we are to be "baptized into
the Name
(i.e., Person)" of each member of the Trinity; while this is often
wrongly taken as a verbal formula to be pronounced in ritual fashion,
that is not what the Greek says (the Greek word eis cannot mean that):
being placed/baptized INTO the Trinity is clearly speaking of the
position we have "in Christ" as a result of the Spirit's baptism: He is
the One who place us "into" Jesus Christ (one part of the baptism) even
as He takes up residence within us (the other part of the baptism); for
more on this, see the link:
"The Baptism of the Spirit" (in BB 5). *And
remember, John and our Lord both predicted Spirit baptism (Matt.3:11;
Acts 1:4-5; 1:8), but never commanded future water-baptism.
3) The apostles did indeed – in the early going – mediate the baptism of
the Spirit by the laying on of their hands (e.g., Acts 2:38; 9:15-17;
cf. Heb.6:1-2). This special dispensation of power was designed by God
to establish the authority of the apostles, but it was not long lasting
so that by the time of the writing of Romans, Paul can assure us that
all believers "have the Spirit" (Rom.8:9); so after the initial part of
the apostolic era, everyone began to receive the Spirit without
mediation upon faith in Christ (as in Acts chapter ten), but when Christ
gave this command in Matthew 28:19-20, that mediation of the Spirit was
precisely what the apostles were being told to do and did do (and did,
starting with Peter in Acts chapter two).
4) Rightly understood, therefore, Matthew 28:19-20 encapsulates for us
the two things that the Church is supposed to be doing: 1) evangelizing
(bringing people "into Christ" through giving the gospel which results
in their Spirit baptism now without mediation), and 2) "teaching them"
to observe the words of Christ (meaning everything in the Bible).
So the shoe really is on the other foot. Matthew 28:19-20 can only
seem
to be talking about water-baptism for those who already mistakenly think
so or for those who don't understand that there are other types of
baptism (and for those who don't know Greek). But even so, such an
assumption is an odd one for any Christian who's read the Bible to make,
given these passages in particular:
"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 last passage here makes very clear that the "commission" which is
present in Matthew 28:19-20 has to do with Spirit baptism, not
water-baptism.
As far as what other people say, there is no end to the zeal of people
who support false biblical positions. You can find that out the next
time a pair of JWs knock on your front door. But zeal is only helpful if
it is connected to the truth (Rom.10:2). And there is a correct position
on this issue as with all other biblical issues: and only one.
Everything else is false. There are many ways which lead to perdition,
but the road to salvation is narrow and steep, and as is the case with
the gospel, so also with all of the truths that Christians are supposed
to learn and believe after accepting the gospel and being united to
Christ.
I sympathize with your "being stumped", but let me point out to you how
"this" (spiritual growth) works. No Christian knows enough or is gifted
enough to reach spiritual maturity on his/her own, and only a handful
are gifted to be able to learn and discern the truth of doctrinal
matters on their own, and even these few are not fit to do so until
after they have been prepared personally and academically and then begun
to engage in serious ministry. That is the job of the pastor-teacher. We
all have our own unique set of gifts, and we are all part of the Body
with a job to do. For a foot to claim to be an ear is just as ridiculous
as the other way around, and for any part of the body to claim it
doesn't need all of the rest is a spiritually dangerous position. One
"part" all Christians need is the pastor-teacher (e.g., 1Cor.12:24b in
the Greek), because only a substantive Bible teaching ministry is
capable of producing sufficient spiritual "food" for a person to be able
to grow up to maturity, keep advancing and passing the maturity tests
that come, and then become prepared to minister him/herself (according
to whatever gifts the Spirit gives and whatever ministries the Lord
assigns). Pretending this is not the case will condemn a Christian with
that position to spiritual immaturity and result in eventual backsliding
in most cases.
Equally fraught with danger is what I call "Smorgasbord" behavior, where
the Christian in question hops from one ministry to the next, one book
to the next, one blog or internet site to the next, and becomes his/her
own referee on "what is true". This is an impossible thing to do (except
for a person gifted to be a teacher once he/she is prepared – and at
that point it would be pointless). Say you find five positions on "the
meaning of water-baptism" (there are plenty more than that if you look
below the surface), and lets say that one of them is actually correct.
Knowing all five does nothing for you. Believing all five is impossible.
Only believing the correct position is spiritual beneficial, because
only the truth believed and transformed from mere gnosis by the Spirit
when we do believe it into epignosis results in this truth taking up
residence in our hearts (see the link:
"Epignosis, Christian
Epistemology, and Spiritual Growth"). Even if the person who knows five
theories has a preference, and even if that preference is for the one
that is actually correct, the fact of not being sure, of not believing,
of not committing that true doctrine to his/her heart by faith, makes
the exercise spiritually meaningless. Knowledge is useless – unless it
is true AND believed. But the self-referee cannot have true confidence –
if acting with any humility at all; and if he/she is confident, it
inevitably turns out to be in the wrong option. And even if he/she
guesses right on this point, and actually believes the truth, the method
will lead to the wrong solution in other cases and doubt will eventually
destroy the whole edifice because the basis for confidence is false. Do
these doctrinal matters we've been discussing have earthshaking
consequences? Some would say not. But how many bricks which are actually
made of chalk does a person have to put in their spiritual foundation
before it runs the risk of collapsing under serious pressure? Or as our
Lord put it:
"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall."
Matthew 7:24-27 NKJV
Christ is the Rock. We believers have built our spiritual foundation on
Him. But how do we "accomplish His words" after we hear them except by
believing the truth they teach us and putting it into practice, "doing
them" as our Lord commands above? For some things, anyone can see from
the Bible what is right (forgiveness, e.g.) and what is wrong (gross
sin, e.g.), but when it comes to the whole fabric of truth which
scripture contains, each teaching, each truth is important, just like
the bricks in your house. Each serves a purpose, though we might not see
it or know it at the time we learn and believe it, and it is the entire
fabric together which informs and supports and empowers the whole.
Christians are supposed to know and believe it all, not spend their
lives weighing each individual brick and never being certain whether it
is a true brick at all or merely chalk.
Please understand. This ministry does not accept donations. You are free
to access everything Ichthys has to offer anonymously and free of charge
without me or anyone else even knowing about it. So I say all this in
the interest of your spiritual benefit. Ichthys is certainly not the
only place to learn the truth, but I am confident that it is one such
place (I also recommend
"Bible Academy"). However, since wherever you are presently going,
they are dead wrong on two very important issues, the true meaning of
baptism and the time of the resurrection, I can tell you from experience
that they are wrong on many other things too. And perhaps more than
that, most churches today in the era of Laodicea only have "positions"
(many of which are wrong) and are not really interested in seeking the
truth from the Word, much less teaching it in any depth or detail –
which is the primary reason and justification for Christian assembly.
So my advice to you is this:
apply
the fruit tree test until you find yourself a place where you can
grow with confidence that what you are being told is the truth, then
give the pastor-teacher the benefit of the doubt going forward (once
vetted), and believe what you are taught. That is the only way to really
learn anything, after all, and especially for Christians – since the
Spirit only uses the truth you have believed in guiding and empowering
you.
You get to choose whom to listen to; but you are the one who has to do
the believing thereafter . . . if you want to grow, progress, and
produce for Christ. And that is the only way to win
the three crowns of
eternal reward (link).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I just want to share some words from a well known Pentecostal former
Pastor and President of a large Pentecostal organization. I can't figure
out where he gets his information from to back up what he writes. I want
to show you what is being propagated to believers about the subject of
"Water Baptism". Here is what he writes in part:
"A solid grasp of water baptism is an essential part of cultivating the inner life. Whether or not you have already been baptized in water. I can think of several reasons why this discipline merits your attention and study. First, our growth and depth of life as disciples of Christ depend on our moving beyond initiation experiences. Discipleship requires our seeing those truth and practices we've already obeyed (like water baptism) for all their implications. In other words, a disciple never simply experiences a truth or performs a sacrament, or act of faith, but he or she goes forth to live out that truth. Second, we need to rethink the discipline of water baptism so we can sensibly and sensitively replay that truth of others. As disciples, we are given the opportunity to teach and influence new believers, so it is to their advantage and ours that we deepen our insights and understanding of the disciplines of the Spirit. We all need to know that water baptism is a distinct biblical commandment - a personal responsibility, not simply a religious idea. And I don't mean "personal" as though it is ours to choose but rather personal in that Jesus commanded it of each one of us!"
He then quotes Mark 16:15-16. Further, he states:
"Hear it? Baptism is as important as the Great Commission. He quotes Matthew 28:19-20. He says that Baptism is a straightforward matter of obedi-ence to Christ. Some people don't take the step to be baptized in water because they have experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit first, and they suppose somehow that baptism in water isn't necessary. But the Bible shows quite the opposite. Look at Acts 10:44-48. No experience, however grand and glorious, is a substitute for water baptism. To live the baptized life is to live in an abiding recollection of my baptism with this mind-set: I have submitted myself in obedience to Jesus' lordship, and this is my livetime commitment. Mt will is to do His will. Jesus Himself identified this as a fundamental issue in water baptism (see Matt. 3:14-15. When the sinless Son of God submitted to be baptized, the heavens opened to Him, the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father spoke from heaven. And these blessings also await the believer who will follow Jesus in baptism."
On the back cover of the book, he receives accolades from Robert
Schuller, John C. Maxwell, and Chuck Colson. I am really appalled at his
writings, and also totally disagree with his view on water baptism. You
and I have shared much on this particular subject and the conclusion
that I came to after studying this "tradition", in my opinion does not
come near what he is propagating as truth from God's Word. My intention
here in writing this is not criticize this individual, but to bring
false teaching in the open. Would you give me your thoughts on what he
writes? Is this what the Body of Christ is being taught these days? I
fear that many do not know the truth.
May the Lord ever use you to proclaim the truth as you always do.
Your friend,
Response #5:
Always good to hear from you my friend.
"Is this what the Body of Christ is being taught these days?" Sadly,
this is very much reflective of the type of thing that passes for
"teaching". Writer quotes from the non-biblical ending of Mark which is
not scripture; writer suggests without explanation that Acts 10 supports
a necessity for water-baptism, showing his ignorance of what that
passage actually says and really means, as well as ignorance about how
the book of Acts, the narrative (not prescriptive doctrine) of the
transitional era between the ages of Israel and the Church, now well
over, is to be interpreted; writer completely fumbles Matthew 28:19-20,
failing to see that no one can be baptized "into" the Trinity by the
application of water (or that water is NOT even mentioned in the
passage); writer makes much of Matthew 3:14-15 by assuming that our
experience is exactly like that of Jesus Christ! This is perhaps the
most egregious error. Beyond all argument, John's water-baptism was a
"baptism of repentance" – but Jesus had NOTHING to repent of; His
water-baptism was unique and its symbolism was unique. Yes, a "baptism
of repentance . . . to all the people of Israel" (Acts 13:24), not for
gentiles today after the cross and resurrection. And, finally, writer
completely fails to notice the passages which actually talk about the
issue of baptism, passages which explain that the ritual of water was to
be replace by the Spirit directly after the resurrection:
"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
It is also worth pointing out that, other than promulgating guilt
feelings for not being water-baptized – or not being water-baptized
enough or the "right way" or not understanding it or appreciating (even
though writer does not even attempt to explain it, likely because he
doesn't understand it) – everything I read here is so confused and
cryptic that there is not only nothing to sink one's teeth into but in
fact any truth a person did believe about this subject would be thrown
into utter confusion by paying heed to anything written here. So, yes,
this is Laodicean teaching: hot air. Actually, worse than, being
corrosive of anything good that might be in a person's heart. I assume
that money is charged for this book? I'll enjoy hearing writer's
explanation for that before our Lord on "the day" (assuming writer is a
believer).
Thanks for sharing this!
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Here is what our friend writes you about this:
I am appalled too. None of the points I make below will be new to you
after reading Professor's teachings on the subject and discussing it
with him, but here are my responses. A solid grasp of water baptism is
an essential part of cultivating the inner life. The scripture nowhere
teaches that. Our Lord never baptised Himself and made no references to
the water baptism as a means of "cultivating the inner life".
Discipleship requires our seeing those truth and practices we've already obeyed (like water baptism) for all their implications. In other words, a disciple never simply experiences a truth or performs a sacrament, or act of faith, but he or she goes forth to live out that truth.
Even at the time when the water baptism was a valid ritual performed by John the Baptist it was an external sign of inner repentance (Matthew 3:11) and it was this inner repentance resulting in the individual bearing fruit through obedience that was key (Matthew 3:8). Inner repentance is about turning away from sin and obeying God and His word - the ritual of water-baptism itself has no "implications" itself. This person wrongly assigns meaning and importance to an outward rite that the scripture does not teach.
Second, we need to rethink the discipline of water baptism so we can sensibly and sensitively replay that truth of others.
As above - the truth is not about the ritual of water-baptism.
We all need to know that water baptism is a distinct biblical commandment - a personal responsibility, not simply a religious idea. And I don't mean "personal" as though it is ours to choose but rather personal in that Jesus commanded it of each one of us!
Water baptism is not a "distinct biblical commandment". Nowhere does the Word of God command us to water-baptise and this person does not provide scriptural references for any of these statements.
He then quotes Mark 16:15-16.
Mark 16:15-16 is not a part of the scripture - the gospel of Mark ends at verse 8. This person quoting these verses gives a testimony of their preparation to a teaching ministry.
Hear it? Baptism is as important as the Great Commission. He quotes Matthew 28:19-20.
To state that "Baptism is as important as the Great Commission" - and he means the water baptism by that - is simply false. Matthew 28:19-20 has nothing to do with water baptism either (even if this is point is much clearer when one has a comprehensive understanding of the entire issue).
Some people don't take the step to be baptized in water because they have experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit first, and they suppose somehow that baptism in water isn't necessary. But the Bible shows quite the opposite. Look at Acts 10:44-48.
The time of water baptism has ended. The passage he quotes not only does not provide evidence for his argument, but provides evidence against it - Acts 10:44-48 shows the redundancy of this ritual already at that time, with Cornelius and his family having received the Holy Spirit before they were water-baptised:
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Acts 10:44-48 NASB
Peter thought it appropriate to perform the water-baptism on these believers, but he did later come to understand that this ritual is irrelevant, as he also writes in the epistle:
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21 NASB
There are two critical points here that are often missed. Firstly, Acts
is a historical book. It gives us an accurate historical account of
events, but it is not a book which in its entirety gives us a command
from our Lord (as we have the words of our Lord given to us in the
gospels), a prophecy or a teaching in the form of a doctrinal letter. We
are not to imitate all that was done by believers in the early church as
given to us in Acts (cf. Acts 15:36-40; 16:1-3), but must exercise
judgment based on what the scripture teaches elsewhere.
Secondly, it is a transitional book - the Old Covenant was being phased
out and the New Covenant was starting. The legacy of John the Baptist
was still alive at the time of the Acts and in Jewish consciousness
repentance was still associated with his water baptism. However:
John's ministry as a prophet still comes under the Old Covenant as he
was preparing the way for the One through whom the New Covenant would
come, John himself understood that the water baptism he was performing
would be replaced with Spirit baptism of our Lord (Matthew 3:11), and
even the water baptism itself was a ritual meant for the repenting Jews
- it was devoid of meaning for the Gentiles who would not even know
about it.
So while we can understand that the Jews who knew John's ministry -
including the apostles - would see water baptism as a ritual that
accompanies repentance, this ritual was never meant as a perpetual
command, as John himself taught, and it was still only present in the
consciousness of the Jews who knew the ministry of John - Gentiles would
not know him. Even in case of the Jews John's legacy would fade as our
Lord and His teaching would rightly become the sole focus.
The change of Peter's attitude to water baptism from Acts 10:44-48 to 1
Peter 3:21 shows that he understood this issue eventually. We have a
similar account from Paul who in 1 Corinthians 1:17 wrote that Christ
did not send him to baptise. This can only be reconciled with the fact
that he preached the gospel to both the Jews and Gentiles - and we know
that believing the gospel results in the "baptism of the Spirit" - if he
meant water-baptism:
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
1 Corinthians 1:17 NASB
To live the baptized life is to live in an abiding recollection of my baptism with this mind-set: I have submitted myself in obedience to Jesus' lordship, and this is my livetime commitment.
As above, water-baptism is falsely given a meaning it does not possess which is nowhere attributed to it in the scripture. Believing and following Christ is about believing and following Christ, not about recollecting an outward rite which should not even be performed.
Jesus Himself identified this as a fundamental issue in water baptism (see Matt. 3:14-15. When the sinless Son of God submitted to be baptized, the heavens opened to Him, the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father spoke from heaven. And these blessings also await the believer who will follow Jesus in baptism.
False as well. This person quoting Jesus' baptism as an example for us
shows their lack of understanding of the symbolism of our Lord being
baptised by John.
John baptised with water for repentance (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4). We
know, however, that our Lord did not need repentance – He perfectly
fulfilled the Father’s will and did not commit a single sin (2
Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15, 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). His
baptism had thus nothing to do with repentance. The baptism of Christ,
through His immersion in water into which all other people have gone
confessing their sins, symbolically represented His immersion in the
sins of the entire humanity which was to take place on the cross (just
as His coming out of the water symbolises His resurrection). The meaning
of our Lord's baptism is unique to Him and so the argument that we
should get water baptised to follow His example is false.
To state that "these blessings [including the Spirit descending upon us]
also await the believer who will follow Jesus in baptism" is false as
well. Even the very passage this person quoted above - Acts 10:44-48 -
shows that water-baptism has nothing to do with receiving the Holy
Spirit. The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of our Lord's
baptism and its unique symbolism.
Beyond replying to the above argumentation there are a few other points
I would make on the subject.
Ephesians 4:4-6 teaches that there is "one baptism". If this is the
case, then it is obvious that the baptism that remains is the baptism of
the Holy Spirit - not water baptism.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6 NASB
We know that today everyone who puts their faith in Christ receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Titus 3:4-7 NASB
We cannot interpret "the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" as having anything to do with water baptism, as it would contradict the most fundamental teaching of the scripture that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) which is given in this very passage - "not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness". If thus "the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" is not a work that we do then it is not water baptism, as it would otherwise indicate that we must perform this ritual in order to be saved.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB
"The washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" is thus a
description of the baptism of the Spirit which we all experience at the
point of believing in Christ.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 NASB
The entire teaching you quoted is false and not founded on the
scripture.
In the grace of our Lord,
part 2
It seems that the issue of water-baptism was misunderstood from very
early times. From the passages I mentioned in my last message (1
Corinthians 1:17; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.) we know that the apostles did
eventually come to understand it, even if it took them some time. But we
have reasons to think that the scriptural teaching on this matter must
have largely been ignored, since there is evidence that the rite of
water-baptism "was from the most primitive times the mode of formal
initiation into the eschatological community of God's people in Christ"
(Walker, p. 104). Walker in his book "A History of the Christian Church"
provides a short discussion on this subject (pp. 104-108) and, while it
is best to ignore his theological explanations, he provides a useful
historical perspective. Since I'm not sure if you are in possession of
this book, I'm attaching a photocopy of these pages.
As you rightly point, the Roman Catholic Church played a major role in
propagating the false teaching of water-baptism and Protestants
followed. The subject is not that difficult and I agree that the primary
reason of the whole confusion can only be that few pursued the truth in
this matter. Additionally, however, I believe an important contributing
factor has been the inclination towards outward rituals, present among
believers and unbelievers alike. The focus on the spiritual reality as
taught in the Word of God is the focus of true faith, but attachment to
external forms is a hallmark of all religion.
I completely agree with you that this empty rite provides nothing at all
for the believer. This is a clear teaching of the scripture to which I
would add my personal testimony - I have not been water-baptised after
being saved through Professor's ministry (neither has my father been
baptised after he came to Christ 2,5 years ago or a couple of others I
know who became believers) and by living the spiritual reality of the
Word of God I have from the beginning seen the water-baptism as
irrelevant. I know I have been born again and received the gift of the
Holy Spirit, I know that this is also the case with my father (and the
others who truly came to Christ) and all of this happened without any
water.
I came across the false teaching of tithing as well. I must say that the
explanation of this pastor you quoted - "Well, if we don't preach
tithing, then people will not give" - is ridiculous to the point of
being comical ("well, if we don't give a false teaching on this subject,
then people will not give, so we might as well teach what is false to
put them under the pressure" - and then there is the issue of motivation
to receive what is being given on part of those who are happy to teach
what is false). But you are right that they will have to answer for
that.
And I agree with you putting the word "church" in inverted commas, as
the various brands of the church visible tend to have little or nothing
with the true Church of those who have a genuine faith in our Lord. It's
a distinction I make all the time myself.
In the grace of our Lord,
Question #6:
I hear quite often in Church from our preacher and other elders and such a couple things that really bother me. Certain people will not have salvation and go to hell because of many different reasons. Baptism, Going to wrong church just on and on. We brought 5 people to salvation this year in our church through baptism. Just a random number I pulled up. Here is my deal when I hear these things it makes me cringe. From how I read the bible there is only one person that knows this and they ain’t on this earth right now. Does it not say we will all be judged in the end? Are we not making ourselves the judge and jury on things like this. I take from the bible I am supposed to do my best to be like Jesus in forgiveness love and taking care of the needy and changing the sins in my life. I find it very hard to believe that our forgiving God has a check list and in the end sets there and goes over it and says oh yes yes yes yes oh no you were baptized wrong or you went to the Church that believed this the furnace for you. I hope and pray every day that I have changed my life and try to do as I need to make this journey but always say that is for one person to decide. Hope all's well.
Response #6:
Good to make your acquaintance.
Anyone who puts their trust in Jesus Christ, His perfect person as the
God-man and His perfect work in dying for our sins, is saved.
"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
Water-baptism is not only not necessary for salvation; if someone is
putting faith in being baptized they are engaging in works-salvation.
The result: just like all in the RC church who think they are working
their way into heaven, in reality they are not saved at all.
Links:
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Robert sorry for the time lapse since you sent this to me but been
extremely busy and took few minutes this morning to pull up an look at
will be doing more later part of reason I pulled up and looked at is
because I am struggling with something again in Church I am now
attending and at this point an elder in. Don’t know if struggle is
correct word but interpretation of things different than other people.
Question for you is it biblical that you have to be baptized for
salvation ? Your input is greatly respected.
Thanks
Response #7:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
Not only is water-baptism not necessary for salvation . . . it's not
necessary period.
Any group, church or individual who proclaims water-baptism as necessary
for salvation is preaching salvation by works. To the extent that anyone
relies on water-baptism for salvation, to that extent they are not
saved, because they have relied on something besides a pure faith in
Jesus Christ. This state of affairs is little different from Roman
Catholicism which is also a "do THIS and be saved" religion. True
Christianity is a "believe this" relationship with Jesus Christ.
The only legitimate water-baptism, the only water-baptism in the Bible,
is John's water-baptism, a special ritual of repentance for Jews (who
were supposed to be believers already) to prepare them for the coming of
the Messiah. But the Messiah has already come. So while there was a
brief moment during the time of transition between the Age of Israel and
the Church Age where water-baptism was occasionally entered into for
those in the orbit of Judaism at the time when all were still
contemporaries of the late John the baptist, this ended about a third of
the way through the time period covered by the book of Acts. There is
much in Acts that is not prescriptive, merely descriptive of what
happened in that very unique and short window of time when there was not
yet a New Testament but there were apostles and overtly miraculous
gifts.
Today there is no excuse for water-baptism (other than ignorance or
religious tradition which puts works over faith). The Messiah came . . .
a long time ago; so there is no need now to prepare for Him to come the
first time (we should now be concerned about the second time). John
himself told us that while he was baptizing with water, the Messiah
would baptize "with fire and with the Holy Spirit". We now have the
Spirit. We now have the New Testament. There are no more apostles or
sign gifts. And we (most of us) are not Jews who are awaiting the first
appearance of the Messiah (none of us are that).
I have written a GREAT deal about this, so the above is merely a very
brief synopsis of the salient points. Here are some of the more
pertinent links wherein you will find the details and the scripture
references:
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism: Water and Spirit VIII
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 #8:
I don't mean to be overly inquisitive but I have my first question.
According to one of the reference articles you gave me, it is written
that immersion baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Around here, its taught to be very compulsory that even if you are not
baptized, it is believed that you are not saved and various Bible
sections seem to assert that.
Some of them are Acts 8:36-39, Matthew 28, 1 Peter 3:20-22 and so on.
Please, iron this out for me.
Thanks.
Response #8:
Not only is baptism not necessary for salvation (in fact, if a person is
relying on that or any other human works for salvation then they are not
relying on grace through faith alone and it is questionable whether they
are even saved), it's not necessary at all. In fact it's a bad idea.
Water baptism is John's baptism, a "baptism of repentance to all the
people of Israel" (Acts 13:24 NKJV). All Israel was supposed to be the
people of God – believers. John came to "make ready a people prepared
for the Lord" (Lk.1:17 NKJV) – which meant that they, the people of God,
had to repent of their sins and turn back to Him. Of course there were
many who were not believers at all and so for them repentance would have
meant putting their faith and trust in Him in the first place, but the
symbolism is of restoration of those in Israel who already belong to God
in order to get them ready for the coming of the Messiah.
But the Messiah has already come. Therefore, water baptizing sends a bad
message, namely, that Christ has not actually come or that there was
something deficient in His coming. Of course, people who water baptize
claim different symbolism – but that is not in accord with the Bible and
the verses cited above (along with many others). But the fact that no
two groups understand the issues around water baptism the same way
(immersion vs. sprinkling, necessary for salvation or merely obligatory,
what it means and symbolizes, etc.) is a clear indication that they are
wrong about it entirely.
All water baptism is John's baptism, but that has been replaced by
Spirit baptism as John and our Lord told us it would be.
"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 the Church's "one baptism" is of the Spirit not water (Eph.4:5). There was a very brief period where the apostles water baptized after the cross, but that was 1) to mediate the baptism of the Spirit (through laying on of hands as at Acts 2:38 and Acts 8:17 – now all who believe are given the Spirit when they believe: cf. Rom.8:9), and 2) to include those of the generation who knew of John into the community of those who had been water baptized by him (today there is obviously no one alive who was water baptized by John). Even in the book of Acts, which covers only part of the apostolic period (compare also Peter shift of attitude between Acts 10:47-48 and 1Pet.3:21), references to water baptizing end very early on, so that Paul can later write to the Corinthians:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
1st Corinthians 1:17 NKJV
The passages you mention are well-known but poorly understood by many
who adopt the legalism of water-baptism:
1) Acts 8:36-39: This takes place very early on in the days of the
apostles (early, that is, in the transitional period from Israel to the
Church Age). It is the Ethiopian who asks to be water-baptized. Philip
does not tell him it is necessary because even then he understood it
wasn't. This is a case of a Jewish proselyte being allowed to be part of
the community of those who had participated in John's baptism so as not
be made to feel like a second-class believer (and also no doubt allowed
Philip to mediate the Spirit to him). Nothing here says it was necessary
or had any sort of effect. The Spirit is the One who leads Philip here
and who takes him away, and the salvation imparted is spiritual.
2) Matthew 28:19-20 does not have the word "water" present anywhere. The
baptism referred to is Spirit baptism. This is what our Lord had
predicted, and John also, in the passages quoted above. And the passage
actually says "baptizing them into the name (i.e., Person)
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". So this is not a
verbal formula but the end purpose of the baptism, placing the new
believing into union with God – which is what the baptism of the Spirit
does in addition to His taking up residence within us. This passage only
seems to speak of water baptism to those who have already incorrectly
decided that it must (but it does not in truth).
3) 1st Peter 3:20-22 is likewise speaking of the baptism of the Spirit.
That is the baptism which delivers us, and the analogy makes that clear.
We are delivered by being "in Christ" in an analogous way to Noah and
his family being delivered by being in the ark (which ark is a type of
Christ, representing Christ, here and in Genesis). The word "water" in
verse 20 is literal water but it has nothing to do with baptism: Noah
and his family were "delivered safely through the midst of
the water (of judgment)" which destroyed the rest of the world. Peter
explicitly says in verse 21 that it is NOT water baptism which saves us,
"not the removal of the filth of the flesh" (NKJV), but rather that our
salvation is supernatural: "but the answer of a good conscience toward
God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" – in other words, our
consciences lead us to believe in Jesus Christ and that is what saves
us. Peter also references the Spirit in verse 22 when he speaks of
Christ's ascension, because the gift of the Spirit follows as a direct
consequence:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 16:7 NKJV
Please also note that even for those who want to quibble about the
correct interpretations given above, nothing in any of these passages
says anything like "you must be baptized with water to be saved" or even
"you must be baptized with water (at all)". That is a false conclusion
which is the result of people "finding" what they think is biblical
support to do what they want to do or what they have always done. But
that is not the way this is all supposed to work. Rather, we go to the
Bible with an open mind and an open heart, and we allow the Spirit to
teach us what is true and what is not.
Clearly, this requires a good teacher (since believers without the gift
and without the preparation cannot hope to make the right judgment calls
themselves on all issues of doctrine), but that is what the Body of
Christ provides, with every part helping every other – and that is true
for prospective pastors too until they come into their own ministries
after adequate preparation of every sort.
The above is a bare synopsis of many important topics. I have occasion
to write a great deal about all of this, so I would ask you to have a
look at these links first if you have further questions (each link will
lead to others as well):
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism: Water and Spirit VIII
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Thank you Bob,
Again, I thank you for the great information and encouragement. I would
appreciate a prayer from you that i stay focused and stop letting doubts
get the better of me. Also, would it be Biblical to say that such
spiritual attacks I am experiencing are tests that will refine my faith?
Also, in 1 John when John states "they went out from among us because
they were not of us", would it be fair to state "they were not of us who
persevere", I don't want to add to scripture, yet many people seem to
use this to justify "hyper-calvinism" and state that such people were
never saved.
Also, an issue I've been pondering on, I was never water baptized, and
consistently desire to be. When I first found the truth, i immediately
strayed as you know, and was very weary not to do anything rash being
confused and having come from a catholic background where I was baptized
as an infant. I know that water baptism is not what saves, but none the
less was commanded by our Lord upon accepting him, and was practiced in
the Bible upon accepting Christ. I do not know where to be baptized, I
am wary of choosing a church and being held to their doctrines. I would
appreciate your guidance.
I will heed your advice on the campaign of spiritual growth.
In out Lord Jesus,
Response #9:
Good to hear it, my friend! I am praying for you daily. Indeed, everything that
conspires against our spiritual growth is a test of sorts. We don't have to feel
bad that we're being opposed. This is the devil's world. Everything down here is
a fight. Our job is to keep fighting . . . and to win.
On 1st John 2:19, this passage functions as a kind of Rorschach test for those
reading it – so of course hyper-Calvinists see things that way.
As I have written elsewhere (link), the people who left were not "of us"
when they left; that doesn't mean that a) they were never believers, or b) ever
believers – merely that by leaving they demonstrated that "at that point" they
were no longer interested in following Christ. But whether they were only
temporary in the faith (like the seed sown on the rocks) or were only in the
church for other reasons (such as social benefits), this says nothing about
predestination.
On water-baptism, I always counsel against it. The baptism Christ gave to the
Church – and the one John himself prophesied about – was the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. And you have that (Rom.9:5). Water-baptism was a Jewish ritual
associated with the coming of the Messiah, the sign of preparation to be ready
to receive Him. But He has already come, of course. It was continued very
briefly in apostolic times in order for the generation which knew about John to
be able to be in solidarity with those who had been water-baptized by John, but
discontinued even while the apostles were still alive (e.g, 1Cor.1:17;
1Pet.3:21). However, weak, marginal and merely pretend Christians love ritual,
so the early church-visible often continued it and then began inducing it with
magical properties. The fact that no two groups can agree on the exact method
and "formula" and that no one who water-baptizes can adequately explain from the
Bible what it's supposed to do and accomplish demonstrates very well that it is
not legitimate for our times. I have written reams on this. Most recent major
link: "Baptism: Water and Spirit
VIII".
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Thank you for the insight.
It's interesting that you advise against it, though there is debate
among it I think it's a clear expression of faith and obedience, I am
not suggesting that the act itself saves. I think of the story of
Cornelius and his family receiving the Spirit, and afterwards being
baptized as a signal that we should as well, and I desire to, yet I am
unsure of who qualifies to baptize, and as I've said, I don't belong to
any institutional church. Also when you say early Christians practiced
it with "magical properties", can you explain what you mean? I know any
kind of "magic" to be demonic, so I am unclear of what you mean when you
say that.
With love and thanks in Jesus,
Response #10:
I fail to find any scripture that says that water-baptism is a "clear expression
of faith and obedience" – that is an assumption some people make but it's not in
the Bible. We are never commanded to be water-baptized, so to whom would you be
being obedient? Matthew 28:19 is speaking of Spirit baptism, the baptism for the
Church Age, not water-baptism (that is all explained in the links). So there's
nothing to do with obedience in being dunked or dipped or sprinkled or whatever.
As to faith, if you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. If you believe you
are saved because of being water-baptized (as some in fact do and so teach),
then you are not saved if you are relying upon your own works.
Acts is a historical book. It chronicles part, mostly the early part, of the
time of transition between Israel and the Church. On the one hand, therefore,
things done in this book cannot be taken as prescriptive; on the other hand,
many things that happen that are good or at least not bad are only so because it
is a time of transition. Clearly, one couldn't go directly from following the
Law to following the Spirit, from the temple rituals to the more important
realities of the Spirit overnight. Even the apostles had a learning curve to
climb, and that is really what your example of Peter commending water-baptism –
as an after-thought – to Cornelius' household manifests. These gentiles were
clearly saved and had no need of a baptism of repentance, one meant for Israel
at that (Acts 13:24). They may not have been hurt by it, but it didn't do them
any particular good. Now that the generation who knew John and his baptism is
long faded away, and now that the realities of the Church Age are well-known (or
should be; sadly, admittedly, often not), water-baptism is misguided at best and
a terrible evil at worst (for all those who teach directly or intimate that
someone without it is not saved or somehow not "obedient"). Water-baptism
divorced from its purpose and time is legalism. That is never good. And can in
fact be really, really bad for a person's spirituality.
As to "magic", if the water provided grace, as the RC church claims, that is
"magic" (black magic); if it provides salvation, same thing. If it "merely"
makes you a better Christian somehow or brings you "closer to God", that is
intimating magical properties which are in fact non-existent, and that is
certainly legalism wherein a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Dear Robert,
I am on my way to Jerusalem, leaving from Karmiel shortly.
Could not find a link to Baptism on your site. John received it (John 1:33) and
Paul was not commanded (1 Cor. 1:17). Perhaps in my haste I missed the link.
Please explain the difference, I think I understand.
Blessings in His glorious Name,
Response #11:
I've written reams about water-baptism vs. Spirit baptism – which is THE
"one baptism" for the Church.
Here are a few of the more recent links which will lead to others:
John and Paul were both water-baptized . . . with John's baptism (that is the
only legitimate water-baptism). But John's baptism proclaimed the Messiah about
to appear to Israel – and by the time Paul wrote this passage you reference to
the Corinthians, gentiles were streaming into the Church, while the cross and
resurrection of Christ were many years in the past. All instances of
water-baptism in Acts have to do with Jews or those closely related to Israel or
proselytes or mixed congregations in the very early days of the Church Age.
Water baptism stops in Acts well before the end of the book and of course Acts
only represents a fraction of the apostolic period. Much more in the links
above.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Hi Dr,
I pray all is well with you. Can you please give me an exegesis on 1 Cor
15:29 "baptized for the dead"? (KJV) Is this verse stating that part of
the reasons the believers in the early Church were baptized were because
they wanted to be reunited with their departed brethren in heaven.
You and your family are in my prayers.
In Christ Jesus our Lord
Response #12:
This is referring to a cult activity which of course Paul rejects. His
point is that even these non-believers believe in the resurrection – so
how can "you Corinthians" doubt it?
As to the motive, you are perhaps correct (except that if the persons
doing this were believers they were marginal ones following false
teachings). The Mormon "church" does this same sort of thing today
(unbelievers).
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Can you give me some additional clarification on Verses 27-28 in this
chapter of 1 Corinthians and verse 24. Well I guess from Verses 20 thru
29? I know what it means, but just need to be able to explain it in the
Bible Study a little better than what I know about it. I am also
wondering why verse 29 is where it is, by that I mean, it does not seem
to fit the context of what Paul is talking about. Would appreciate your
insight Blessings to you always,
Your friend,
Response #13:
First, here's my translation of the context:
(20) But as it is [in contrast to the false hypothetical that there is no bodily resurrection], Christ has [indeed] been resurrected from the dead as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (i.e., died in the Lord so as now to be in heaven in an interim state). (21) For since death [came] through a man, resurrection of the dead also [had to come] through a man. (22) For just as in Adam, all die, so also in Christ, shall all be made alive. (23) But each [will be resurrected] in his own echelon. Christ [is the] first-fruits (i.e., the initial person and echelon of resurrection). Next [will be] those belonging to Christ at His coming (i.e., all believers at the 2nd Advent). (24) Then the end [of human history – the resurrection of millennial believers], when He will hand the Kingdom over to the Father, after He has brought an end to all rule, all power, and all authority (i.e., hostile human and angelic control). (25) For He must rule until He has placed all His enemies under His feet. (26) and death is the final enemy to be done away with. (27) For "He has subordinated all things under His feet (i.e., those of the Messiah: Ps.8:6)". And when He says that all things have been subordinated, clearly this does not include the One (i.e., the Father) who has subordinated the all things (i.e., the universe) to Him. (28) And once all things have been [fully] subordinated to Him (i.e., at the end of history when the final revolt is put down), the Son will be subordinate to Him who subordinated all things to Him, so that God [the Father] may be all in all (i.e., be the visible ruler of the new heavens and the new earth). [NEW PARAGRAPH] (29) Otherwise (i.e., if the resurrection were not a fact as proved above), then what will those [very people] do, [the very ones who are disturbing you with this "no resurrection" teaching], who are being water-baptized on behalf of those already dead (i.e., in the vain hope of saving the unsaved dead)? Why are they even baptizing themselves on their behalf [if there is no resurrection]?
1st Corinthians 15:20-29
To start with the last first, the individuals who were falsely teaching
the Corinthians that there was no bodily resurrection were the very ones
who were being water-baptized for departed loved ones with the idea that
this would save them. Of course this is nonsense, first, because
water-baptism does nothing for the living, let alone for the dead, and
also of course because once a person departs from this world, the time
of free will choice is over. But Paul introduces this point, to be taken
in conjunction with what he had said earlier at 1st Corinthians
15:12-19, to demonstrate that by their very actions, wrong though they
are, they too must have some hope in a bodily resurrection, otherwise
these wrong actions are also logically pointless, because NO ONE is
saved from anything if there is no bodily resurrection from the dead.
Most of the other verses are explained, I think, by the translation and
its expansion (square brackets) along with the parenthetical
explanations (smooth brackets), so I will let you have a look and get
back to me if there is anything you'd like clarified further. But you
did ask me about verses 27-28, so I will add here that Paul, dealing
with a congregation which was notoriously prone to taking things the
wrong way and being mislead by false teaching (as both epistles to the
Corinthians show), felt the need to "head off at the pass" certain false
assumptions he was fearful that they would make. In this case, he seems
to have been concerned that without saying this they would get the wrong
idea about the Trinity, either thinking wrongly from what he said that
there was no difference between the Father and the Son, or that the Son
somehow had now surpassed the Father, or that it is only in this
universe that the Son is God (à la Mormonism).
One other thing to note is that Paul here also gives the order of the
resurrection in vv.23-24 with Christ already resurrected, the Church to
be resurrected at His return, and the millennial population, the
"friends of the bride", to be resurrected at "the end" of history.
Best wishes for a great Bible study!
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I have a comment and a question on the Subject verse:
" 28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all."
Comment: When I see the word "subjected", I think of subordination, but I know that this is not what this word means here? Further, the words "so that God may be all in all" puzzled me for some time in my life trying to understand what this means. I came to the conclusion or understanding that, what this is saying is "that the ministry of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit is completed? Jesus as mankind's mediatorship will cease, as well as the ministry that the Holy Spirit had, of drawing people to the Father, which will happen at the end of the Millennial reign of Christ when the New Heaven and New Earth will be inhabited in eternity. Am I incorrect in my understanding?
"So that God may be all in all".
I know that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are
Supreme and they share the same essence, so what does this statement
mean?
Thanks always for your help. Blessings to your and the Ministry God has
blessed you with, it is most assuredly a great help to me as well as
countless others who know of your Website and your ministry.
Your friend,
Response #14:
Always wonderful to hear from you, my friend.
You are on the right track indeed.
In their deity, the Trinity are "one God" and coequal.
In His humanity, the Lord Jesus Christ is subject to the
Father; Jesus is the Head of all creation (Col.1:16-18), while the
Father, in His deity, stands over and above creation, even in its
ultimate form of the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Col.1:19-20).
As to "all in all", the plan of God had to be brought to a complete and
final and perfect conclusion – the one ordained from eternity past – in
order for the Father to commune with us all in the eternal state. The
One who carries out that plan is our Lord Jesus Christ by being the
divine instrument whereby everything is subjected to God. Or as we might
put it, subjecting the world was no problem for God from the standpoint
of power; the problem was how His righteousness and creature free will
might be resolved so as to bring about that perfect eternal future where
He could be "all in all", fellowshiping with us and giving us "all
things" without any danger of rebellion or any trace of sin or evil.
That required the cross – and thus the incarnation and victory of our
Lord.
I hope this answers your questions, but please do feel free to write
back about any of the above.
Thanks so much for all of your good and encouraging words, my friend!
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Ephesians 4:4-6:
There is one body and One Spirit - just as when you were called it was in one hope that you were called. There is One Lord[Jesus Christ], one faith, one baptism. There is One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Comment: In this precís of the "unity of the faith" (Eph.4:3), Paul reminds us of some of the most important common factors of our Christian faith. In doing so, certain aspects of individual Trinity roles are emphasized: the Holy Spirit's role in bringing us into the body of Christ and our concomitant hope of resurrection in Christ; the Lord Jesus Christ's role as our object of faith and the Spirit baptism by which we enter into union with Him through that faith; the Father's role as the unifying God of love, who knits His family of believers together in every way.
One aspect of this exegesis is not clear to me - in what way does the passage teach "the Holy Spirit's role in bringing us into the body of Christ"?
Response #15:
That is what the "baptism" is and means in this passage (see the link: "union with Christ").
Question #16:
In Galatians 6:13, what does Paul mean by "boast in your flesh"?
Response #16:
As legalistic believers today sometimes "boast" about the people they've supposedly led to Christ and gotten to undergo water-baptism, so these legalistic Jewish "evangelists" boasted about those they had gotten to undergo circumcision.
Question #17:
At John 4:2, why were our Lord's disciples baptizing people in water? Could they have been doing it on His Authority? Since His Own Baptism was of the Spirit and fire, is there any reason to expect that He would have baptized anyone with water?
Response #17:
Christ did not do so (as John makes clear here by saying just that). But for the disciples to do so was a very clear way of connecting John's pronouncement of the coming Messiah with Jesus being that very Messiah.
Question #18:
Thank you for the reply professor and prayers it is always a great
pleasure to hear from you. Please can you help me shed more light on
these two verses below though they don't relate, I'll appreciate your
insight.
- John 3:22 about Jesus baptizing
- psalms 110 : 1 and the Lord , lord...
Thank you and God bless you
Response #18:
You're most welcome.
On your questions, I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, so please
feel free to write back if I missed what you were getting at.
On John 3:22, in fact, while His disciples did baptize with water, Jesus
Himself never did:
(though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples [did]),
John 4:2 NKJV
On Psalm 110:1, David was given by the Spirit to pen these words, words
which make it clear that David's coming son, the Son of God, would also
be his Lord – as Jesus is. That is why our Lord used this verse to
discomfit the Pharisees, because there is no other way to understand it
than to be saying that the Messiah will be God.
I hope your family is doing well (keeping you in prayer).
In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Greetings
Sorry for the late reply professor, my concern was that Jesus allowed or
better yet permitted his disciples to baptize...Why? I understand that
this water baptism was only akin to the Jews to prepare there hearts for
the Messiah. If Jesus was anointed and his ministry had began why does
he allow this to continue? I also wonder why he permitted this even when
John the Baptist' disciples were also baptizing. Up until when was this
water baptism going to end?
Response #19:
First, Jesus never baptized. Second, this incident, John 3:22 - 4:2, is the only
recorded instance of His disciples baptizing (which means, especially the way it
is described, that this was an unusual rather than a regular occurrence). Third,
our Lord doesn't tell either the 12 or the 72 when He sends them out to
water-baptize. And fourth, He would later tell His disciples as John said too
that the Spirit's baptism was to replace water-baptism (Acts 1:5; cf. Mk. 1:8;
Acts 11:16). But of course that would not happen until the day of Pentecost.
So think of it this way: just as the apostles initially did some water-baptizing
as a bridge between Israel and the Church Age, so this incident is a bridge
between John's ministry and Jesus' ministry: in both cases the purpose is to
reinforce and remind of the truth that John was heralding Jesus. Most Jews made
a show at least of accepting John, so deliberately connected the two made it
easier to accept – and harder to reject – the fact that Jesus is the Messiah,
because John was the Messiah's herald (cf. Matt.21:25).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
[loved one contemplating water-baptism]
Response #20:
There's another "issue", however. It might behoove me to just keep my mouth
shut, but I might regret that more, so here goes.
First, let me assure you that I dearly love you, and this has nothing to do with
that. When I was a lot younger, in graduate school out in California, I lost a
dear Christian friend in a most unexpected way. She had a reaction to some
antibiotics she was taking and died before they realized what her problem was. I
dropped her off at the health clinic in the afternoon. That evening I got a call
from a hospital telling me to show up ASAP. I was panicked. I thought maybe she
needed some emergency surgery and I had to sign off or something for it to go
forward (her whole family lived in Illinois). I don't know how I made it to that
place in the dark with running myself or somebody else off the road. But it
turned out I could have driven slowly. She had already passed away. But she had
put me down as her emergency contact, so they needed to let someone know the bad
news, and that someone was me.
As is typical I suppose, I didn't realize just how attached I was to her until
she was suddenly gone. Over the course of the next weeks, this caused a great
spiritual stirring in me. I put a lot into her eulogy – maybe too much. The
memorial service took place at the small church she was going to at the time,
and in the course of things I ended up developing a relationship with her
pastor, and her church, and that led to many things. In retrospect, given the
nature of the ministry I have been blessed to be entrusted with, it was a good
experience, but much more along the lines of learning by negative example than
anything else. Her church was very different from the Presbyterians, a
non-denominational place that emphasized doing and feeling over learning and
discerning. Eventually, I ended up getting immersion water-baptized (I had of
course been "sprinkled" by my dad as a baby) and dragging others into that as
well. In the end, however, the myriad problems with this particular approach to
Christianity came more and more to the fore, and there was a rift and a split. I
don't really regret the immersion. I suppose it didn't really do me any harm.
Although I feel pretty hypocritical about it now, given what I know about the
Bible and the truth of the Word of God today (more on that below). But I suppose
I'll always regret dragging someone else into it who did it for me and not out
of personal conviction.
"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
Water-baptism was a ritual for Jews of Jesus' day meant to "to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord" (Lk.1:17). That was John's mandate. All those who
came to him were supposed to be believers already (some were and some weren't),
because God's nation Israel was supposed to be composed of believers 100%, even
though this figure was never even closely approached; John's ritual represented
God's forgiveness and thus made them ready to hear and follow the Messiah who
was about to be revealed to Israel. Water was for symbolizing repentance, and it
was meant for that specific generation; the Spirit (which all believers have:
Rom.8:9, e.g.) is for everyone afterwards; using water when one has the Spirit
is like saying Christ hasn't gone to the cross yet.
What? No water baptism? Hasn't the church been doing this for centuries? Indeed.
But no two groups do it the same way or ever have. And no two groups explain it
the same way. And in fact no one can explain it to you in a reasonable way –
because it is not biblical, at least not any longer (for examples in Acts see
the links at the bottom).
Doesn't the Bible tell us we need it? No. Mark 16:16 is
not part of the Bible
(see link). And Matthew 28:19 is speaking of
mediating the Holy Spirit (notice the word 'water' is not mentioned there;
see link): as the passages cited above by John and our Lord should make clear,
the "Great Commission" is taking about Spirit baptism – that is baptism for the
Church Age.
Why do people keep doing this then? First, because that is what "everyone else
does" and what "everyone else has always done" – everyone putting tradition in
front of what the Bible clearly says, that is. The R.C. church has an altar, not
because we are supposed to have altars but because they had them in Israel under
the Law. That is also why they have priests, and holy water, and confession, and
countless other things that have no basis in scripture. The Reformation cleared
away a good deal of this stuff in Protestant churches, but today the trend is to
move back to ritual over the Bible. Baptism is one that the reformers never got
over, but note that they all did it differently and all said it meant something
different – and that is always a moving target. Why? Because nowhere in the
Bible are we told to be water-baptized (John and Jesus' generation being the
exception because of the advent of the Messiah to His people: Jn.1:11). So
nowhere in the Bible is "the reason for continuing water-baptism" explained . .
. because there is no reason for continuing water-baptism.
There is another reason groups keep it up, however: this is a ritual that people
find embarrassing. Therefore once a person has committed to doing it publicly it
has two important effects: 1) it binds the person closer to the group that
persuaded him/her to do it ("skin in the game"); 2) it makes the person who does
it feel good/proud of the sacrifice/display. Both of these effects are "good"
for the groups concerned, because the people who do it are now more likely to
stay, and because they are also likely now to be more "serious" about their
commitment (which results in financial contributions, work, bringing in more
people), their commitment, that is, to the group (not to Jesus Christ). This is
a feature, therefore, of all religions and movements, namely, giving them some
difficult "works" to do to prove their worthiness to belong (i.e., a "rite of
passage"). But water-baptism has little to do with walking with Christ. In fact,
in my view, it works at cross purposes to that walk. We are here to honor Him
and love Him and serve Him. And that is done by learning and believing the
truth, walking according to it, and helping others do the same. It is not done
by works, not by works of any sort, and especially not by anything that makes a
display of ourselves. Water-baptism is works, not grace. It doesn't forgive sins
– your sins are already forgiven; it doesn't provide salvation – you are already
saved. But it is "doing something", something public and somewhat dramatic, to
"prove" I suppose that a person is "serious about Christ" and "obedient to
Christ". But if the Lord knows you are serious, proving it to others is actually
an indication of being unsure in one's heart (e.g., Matt.4:5-7). And if
obedience to Christ were fulfilled by ritual observance of parts of the Law
(that is the milieu of John's water-baptism), then "it would no longer be of
grace" (Rom.11:6).
Will it hurt me to be water-baptized? Not if the water is chlorinated . . .
unless it has deeper, negative spiritual effects. In my own case, water-baptism
was probably the least of the abuses the church I had temporarily hooked with up
was practicing, but until I broke free it was a contributing factor to the
overall problem, and, as I say, I'm not without regrets today.
I respect your right to do what you think is right. I promise not to think less
of you in any way whatever you decide to do, and I'm also not giving you advice.
And I certainly am not going to stop praying for you every day as I is my
practice.
If you do have some doubts, and if you do talk to your pastor about them, I
would suggest asking him the "why" question (i.e., why is it good/necessary to
do), the "where" question (i.e., where in the Bible does it say we're to do it),
and last but not least the "what" question (i.e., what is it supposed to do,
accomplish and symbolize). I know the sorts of answers people give to these
legitimate questions – and they are all easily found to be wanting. If the
emotion is stripped out of it, few people would probably ever get
water-baptized. That is to say, if the guilt is stripped out of –
guilt at "not being water-baptized" when this is brought up by
pastor/elders/fellow members – few would ever do it. But guilt feelings have
nothing to do with faith, exactly the opposite (Rom.14:23).
I have probably written hundreds of pages on this subject, so please understand
that the above is merely a "nutshell" treatment. Here are some links to where
the topic is discussed at Ichthys which, in addition to the ones already
provided above, will give you a pretty clear picture of the issue if you care to
have a deeper look:
John's Water-Baptism versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism: Water and Spirit VIII
One Baptism: the True Meaning of Peter's Words at Acts 2:38.
"I baptize you with water 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