MTMattie
Well-known member
I will not bold, highlight or color change any part of this... because of the copyright instructions. THIS IS PART 1 DUE TO LENGTH.
Which Baptism is Baptism?
by Tony Warren
Many legitimate questions have been raised by Christians regarding "what the proper mode of baptism is, and what it actually does." There are basically three modes of water baptism used in Christianity today. They are immersion, affusion or pouring, and sprinkling. Sprinkling is sometimes called aspersion. The church is somewhat divided on the question of which method is correct, but my affirmation is that they all are acceptable forms of water baptism because all are tokens of cleansing done in the name of the Lord. However, these questions should certainly be addressed by faithful theologians. Especially since there are several churches teaching that water baptism is a "required" sacrament for salvation. However, any such requirement in order to gain (or maintain) one's salvation would qualify as a gospel predicated upon our works. This is an unbiblical if not heretical position. Baptism in water has no power of its own, because there is no efficacy in H20, which is mere physical water. Rather, water baptism is a token of the spiritual baptism (cleansing) that the Holy Ghost performs. This is the real power of regeneration among Christians. The outward token that we apply in the sacrament of water baptism is simply to "signify" this inward occurrence. Indeed it is very much like the ceremonial ablutions instituted in the old testament were outward signs of the cleansing of God. Or as circumcision was an outward sign of a Covenant (promissory) relationship with God based upon His cutting off sin. It didn't mean that everyone participating in this practice were actually made righteous, but that they had received the sign or token of the Lord's righteous people.As circumcision was the Old Covenant sign God wanted His people to apply to illustrate something infinitely more important than the physical cutting off of flesh, so water baptism is a sign applied to illustrate something infinitely more important than physical washing of the flesh. In each instance the ceremonial act itself was not saving faith, it was the 'sign' of saving faith. Romans chapter four touches on this principle as it speaks of Abraham declaring that righteousness was not imputed to him by circumcision because he was already righteous by saving faith even before the circumcision. But his circumcision was the 'sign' of that faith.
Romans 4:11
- "..and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:..."
So while we might read passages in the Old Covenant that appear to indicate hat they were required to be circumcised in order to have the righteousness of faith, we see clearly that this was really never the case. The rite concerning circumcision was just a "sign" of the real occurrence of casting off of the flesh. In this exact same way, water baptism is a sacrament that Christians receive as a token of the real occurrence of cleansing, which is baptism by the Spirit. We must be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to be saved, not H²0. Without this true baptismal cleansing of God, we would still be unwashed and deep in trespass and sin no matter how many rites of water ablutions we practiced. No pun intended, but the truth about Baptism should not be "watered" down. While water baptism is a precept of God (as circumcision was), baptism in the Spirit is the only unqualified requirement for salvation.
This we should know inherently because water is a compound or mixture that cannot save. It can make you wet, it can wash physical filth from the flesh, and it can be a sacrament and signification that a Christian is under the Covenant of God. But what it cannot do is save. In the Old Covenant times, the blood of sacrificed lambs did nothing for the children of Israel to wash away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and yet was a precept or commandment of God. In the same way as baptism today, it was a sign of the blood of Jesus (The Lamb of God) that would come and truly wash away the sins of Israel. The Old Covenant sacrificing of a lamb is something that the children of Israel did as a shadow looking forward to the true lamb that would actually cleanse Israel from sin. Likewise, water baptism is something that God commands us to do as a token of the true washing by the Spirit by which we are cleansed. There is a very big difference between a command of God to do something, and a requirement "in order to be" saved. Not all Christians understand this. I recently received a letter from a Christian stating:
He is right about what God tells us and that we should do it, but his logic is flawed on his concluding point. Because we are also commanded that in, "whatever we do, do all to the Glory of God." So when we do something that is not to the Glory of God, are we all therefore lost? Of course not, but we would be if that logic followed through. We are commanded to sin not, so when we have a moment of a sinful thought, does that mean that we are all therefore lost? We are commanded to go to church, so if we have neglected going to church this week, then are we all therefore lost? Of course you see my point here. And neither are we 'necessarily' lost if we were not baptized. We're not saved by works. This is a command like any other command of God, which of course should be obeyed, but it is most certainly not a requirement that one must obey or else they are unsaved. There is a subtle and yet distinct difference, which is illustrated in our understanding of true Sovereignty and Grace of God.
In answer to his letter, I gave this person the example of the thief on the cross who was not baptized and yet was saved by Christ--to which he retorted:
This would indicate that salvation by Grace alone has somehow changed, but has it? We are to follow the ordinances of God today, and they were to follow the ordinances of God before the cross as well. But they weren't saved by following it then anymore than we are today. The salvation program of Grace has not changed because God has not changed (Hebrews 13:8) and is still the he author and the finisher of His servants faith. For this theory to be true, either the salvation program of God has changed, or there is one salvation program for this thief, and another entirely different program with different rules for everyone else. The truth is that the thief, as well as all other old covenant saints, were saved the exact same way that we are today. By Grace, through faith. They of course were looking forward to the finished work of Christ through ablutions and sacrifices, and we look backward at the finished work of Christ in communions and baptisms.
Hebrews 10:4
- "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."
Their obeying the command to make animal sacrifices of blood couldn't save them anymore than our obeying the command to be baptized in water will save us. We were and are all saved the exact same way, which is by grace through faith. No one today is being made whole by someone's work of sprinkling, dipping, dunking, or splashing water upon them. The salvation program was the same for the thief on the cross as it is for us. By the total sovereignty of God to bestow His unmerited grace upon us.
If I can make an (admittedly imperfect) analogy, it's very much like when we get married and we exchange wedding rings. Those rings in truth really don't mean anything with regards to us 'actually' being married. Yet we desire to have them as a sign or token of our marriage covenant. In other words, we are married 'with or without' the rings, but we have them because they are a sign or token of our joining in a sacred marriage bond before God. In the same way, when you are saved, you have been redeemed with or without being baptized with water. But water baptism is a sign or token of the true covenant bond relationship. As circumcision illustrated the righteousness of the covenant bond, so baptism illustrates the righteousness of the covenant bond. God tells us to apply that sign just as He told the Israelites to apply the sign of circumcision. Even our plain reasoning should tell us that if baptism in water was required to be saved, then anyone who didn't have the opportunity to become baptized in water, could never have been redeemed (what a horrible thought). ..else it's not really a requirement. Because we can't have it both ways.
Romans 11:6
- "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
Another error is that some church groups take great pains in pointing out that the word Baptize [baptizo] means to dip. But in actuality, the word doesn't really mean dip, though it is taken from a root word [bapto] that means to whelm, which is by implication dipping. But [baptizo] means to wash (despite what your dictionary commentary might say). The word is used in the sense of whelming or putting water on something to wash it, as illustrated in the extended word [baptismos]. For example:
Luke 11:38
- "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner."
- "And when they come from the Market, except they Wash , they eat not."
The words translated "wash" and "washed" in those passages is [baptizo], which is the exact same word translated baptize. It was translated wash there because that is precisely what it means. To place water on something in order to get rid of uncleanness. When used in the Christian Baptismal sense, the word signifies the Spiritual cleansing or ablution of the Spirit. That is to say, not the removing of the filth of flesh that water can do, but the washing away of sins that only spiritual ablution can do. It is a sacrament signifying a Spiritual cleansing. As such, it is not the dipping of our sins away, but the "washing" or cleansing us from sin. Should we read the Luke 11:38 passage this way:
"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first dipped before dinner?"
Of course that would not convey the correct understanding because what is being said in these verses is that they washed. They whelmed their hands with water (washed) before eating dinner. Obviously the word should be (and was) accurately translated as washed. Of all the common translations, not one of them ever translated this word here as dip or dipped. And the reason is obvious, it clearly means to wash. The Bible is its own interpreter and its own dictionary, and so by comparing scripture with scripture we can easily discover how God wants words defined. Again, we see the word [baptizo] and [baptismos] used respectively this way in mark chapter 7:
Mark 7:4
- "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the Washing of cups, and pots brazen vessels and of tables."
I'm sure no one is going to speak saying, I'm going into the kitchen to dip [baptizo] my hands or I'm going into the kitchen to dip [baptismos] the cups and and pots. People do not talk that way, and neither did the people of this time. They spoke of washing their hands and washing their beds or tables. They spoke of washing their cups and pots. That is why the word is translated correctly as washing. They could not honestly translate it as anything else because that's what the word delineates. [baptizo] is a word derived from a word meaning to whelm, and means to wash. Only those are predisposed to believing otherwise because of their church tradition would argue that this a bad translation by all popular versions of the Bible.
Hebrews 9:10
- "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers Washings.."
Would divers or different dippings work there? Not at all because the meaning of this word [baptismos] here is used here to illustrate ceremonial washing or ablutions. A sacrament that is a ceremonial cleansing, which was a SIGN of the Spiritual washing that God would ultimately do for them. The defining of this word to mean washing is made abundantly clear in other verses as well:
Acts 22:16
- "And why tarriest thou? arise and be Baptized and Wash away thy sins..."
By rule of precedence, context, comparison and common sense, this word baptized [baptizo] used here means to be cleansed in the washing away our sins, not by dipping away our sins. Again, as we just read in Hebrews 9:10 of divers or various baptisms [baptismos], these were the washings that were part of the Old Testament sacraments or ceremonies. This baptism most certainly is not entailing dippings. And as we read down a few verses to 21, God makes that abundantly clear.
Hebrews 9:13
- "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:"
- "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,">/li>
- "Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
- And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
These diverse baptisms (different washings) of the old testament do not in any way mean dippings. It signified a "cleansing" in ceremonial washing, all of which ultimately pointed to Christ. In these cases, this ceremonial cleansing was definitely sprinkling. This blood sprinkled is the shadow or picture of the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ by whose blood we are Spiritually made clean. This cleansing in Christ's death has nothing whatsoever to do with immersion, it has to do only with the "washing" away of our sins in his blood. They weren't immersed in blood because immersion is not the point. Did the Israelites immerse the Altar or whatever they sprinkled the blood on to signify cleansing? Not at all, and these cleansings is what the sacrament of these diverse baptisms or ablutions signified. The baptism [baptismos] in which the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, was a sign of sanctification for the purifying of the flesh. The New Covenant is the confirming of the old Covenant by Christ, who came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill or complete it. Old Covenant ablution becomes New Covenant Baptism. Old Covenant Sacrifice becomes New Covenant Communion. Old Covenant Sabbath becomes New Covenant Day of Rest. Old Covenant Israel becomes New Covenant Israel. These were all everlasting laws, and continue only in Christ Jesus. Likewise, Old Covenant baptisms refers to our being 'cleansed' ceremonially, not to us being dipped ceremonially.
Would we use the word to say we are 'dipped' with the Holy Spirit? No, that would be improper because God washes or cleanses us with the Holy Spirit, not dips or immerses us. This baptism in the Holy Spirit of God has everything to do with the cleansing of regeneration. It's about making us clean spiritually, not about a church tradition of dipping or immersion. That is not to say that immersion cannot be a perfectly acceptable way to baptize, it is to say that it is not the 'only' or 'most Biblical' way to baptize. Unfortunately, this position is so often postulated by some Christians.
The fact is, water is not spiritually salvific. When we consider if water can wash away sins, the answer is a resounding, no. Thus how could the amount of water used in a ceremonial sacrament be a qualifier when it is simply a token of the true? In God's eyes, whether one is washed by sprinkling, washing in a cup of water, a tub, a river or a ocean is not the point. The washing of H²0 is not the point, the washing of the Holy Spirit of God is. In Hebrews 9:21-22, and all throughout the Bible this is clearly illustrated.
Ephesians 5:26
- "that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word."
- "..except a man be born OF WATER and of The Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
