MTMattie
Well-known member
PART 3
Moreover, those who even insist that baptism in water is synonymous with baptism in the Spirit are treading on dangerous ground. It is easily proven by scripture that this belief is Biblically indefensible.
Acts 8:15
So here we see that although these people had been Baptized in water, they still were yet saved because they didn't yet have the Holy Ghost spiritually cleanse them. And God plainly tells us, He that doesn't have the Holy Spirit is none of His (Romans 8:9). Proof positive that water Baptism does not mean one has been Baptized in the Holy Spirit whereby he has been redeemed or saved. Baptism in water and the Holy Spirit can happen at the same time, or it can happen at different times. Because the water is merely a token. While anyone can set a date and time to be Baptized in water, no one can set a date for Baptizing in the Spirit but God. So then honestly, rationally and logically, how could water Baptism mean one is saved or not saved? Are we in control of our time of salvation or is God in control? We can set a date to have the sign of water put on us, but the Baptism that saves us is of the Spirit and could happen before water Baptism, or after or even not at all. That is basically what 1st Peter chapter three is illustrating. Water can cleanse our flesh of physical filth, but it cannot bring real salvation.
1st Peter 3:21
Again, we are clearly told that Baptism does save us, but "NOT" the Baptism in water wherein you can put away the filth of the flesh (washing), but Baptism of the Spirit that is provided us by the redemption secured in the death and resurrection of Christ. Water Baptism is a figure, a sign, or a token of something infinitely more important. Water is the figure of the acknowledgement of a good conscience toward God. A token that we are made clean of our carnal nature. It is our new birth where we are born of water and baptized in this Spirit. And that work was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ, not by any man does of applying literal water.
Titus 3:5
We are regenerated by the cleansing of the Holy Spirit of God. That word translated regeneration means a spiritual nativity or a spiritual rebirth. We gladly put on the sign of water Baptism to signify the true washing that came when Christ reigns in our lives. John the Baptist baptized with the Baptism of repentance with physical water, but after the cross, Jesus made it so we were Baptized by a infinitely more permanent solution to the uncleanness of the flesh.
Luke 3:16
Would John say, "I dip you with water but Jesus shall dip you with the Holy spirit and Fire?" No, because the word translated Baptize there [baptizo] does not mean dip, it means to wash or cleanse. Dip makes no sense in context. This is the "REAL" Baptism or cleansing that will take place with the coming of Christ. It's by the Holy Spirit, and it's by fire because we have gone through the 'refiner's fire' in His propitiation on our behalf. Not dipped in it, but we are cleansed in it. This is the "One Baptism" that only the Lord can provide.
Acts 11:16
The One Baptism that sprinkling, pouring or immersion merely represents. So knowing all these things, we know that the 'amount' of water, the position of the body or the mode of application has no bearing upon the token. Christians saying that you must be immersed in water to be legitimately baptized are claiming more than scripture will allow. They're adding church tradition to the word. One scripture that is often used in a attempt to prove Baptism must be done by immersion is Romans chapter 6:
Romans 6:3-6
At first glance this appears to support the view, however the sense is that we are buried with him by being baptized through His death. In other words, the work of Christ is finished and thereby we are washed clean by the Spirit into that completed work. i.e., our Spiritual regeneration is by the washing of Baptism, which is the result of His dying with our sins, and afterward being raised up without them. It is "not" saying that by our water baptism we are buried with Him into His death. That would makes no sense at all since Baptism doesn't kill, bury or raise us, rather it is the token of the "result" of His death, burial and resurrection. In other words, "water Baptism" publicly illustrates that we are the election, having been made part of His death, burial and resurrection through redemption from sin. Not by signifying our burial in water, but our washing by the Spirit through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This can be better seen in Colossians:
Colossians 2:12
The Baptism "wherein" you are risen with Him through Faith of the operation of God. This is not water Baptism, but the Baptism of the Spirit by which we are raised up in the finished work of Christ. This is the action whereby we, being dead in trespass and sin, were resurrected unto new life. It has nothing to do with Water Baptism except physical Baptism is a token of "this" work wherein we are cleansed. It is not really speaking of the quantity or depth of water, but the role, impetus, objective or purpose of this water--which is cleansing by Christ's death and resurrection. Not any actual burying in water. In the insistence by some that, "to be buried like Christ in death, you should be totally immersed," they are making a commentary, not declaring a biblical precept. Baptism is a synonym for cleansing or washing. Water Baptism is a 'token' or sign of the washing clean of the Holy Spirit, not a token of our immersion in the ground like He was. Water cleanses, it does not bury. It's a picture not of the immersion in dirt, but of the cleansing which was done inside us by Christ. If God had wanted Baptism to be a sign of burial, He would have had us bathe in dirt. On the contrary, baptism is a symbol of washing or cleansing, which is why it is done in water and also symbolized by fire. A refiners fire cleanses, and water cleanses, a tomb or burial does not take away filth. Christ did that by the efficacy of His death for us, not His burial. Even in the only instance in scripture that speaks of dipping in this manner (2nd kings 5:14), it is clearly to illustrate using water to wash and be clean, not to bury.
2nd Kings 5:13
And this is God's representation of baptism, not of being buried, but of being cleansed in water wherein the amount is insignificant. Indeed no one would deny that it is true that Baptism is brought about by the death of Christ, but that is not the picture water represents. e.g., wine in communion is a picture of the blood of Christ cleansing us, but it's not a picture of burial. A dove is a picture of the Spirit upon us, but it's not a picture of a coffin. Bread is a picture of the body of Christ, but it's not a picture of us eating a tomb. Yet they are all related, and surely one could say that the communion bread represents the death and burial of Christ. But that is NOT the picture put forth by using the symbol of 'bread.' Rather, it's a representation of the Spiritual food of life that we will live by. A portrait of the word of God. Neither is using water a symbol of burying anyone, it's a symbol of what we use to wash clean with. When Colossians says we are 'buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,' it merely means that it is by His death and resurrection laden with our sins, that we receive the cleansing of the Spirit. i.e., He died for us, and the efficacy in the cleansing of the Spirit is by His work on the cross. Water is not being equated with dirt or burial, cleansing is being equated to be by Christ's death and resurrection.
To believe that immersion is the only way to Baptize is nonsense, but immersion is fine if that's the way we want to symbolize cleansing. I see nothing inherently wrong with that (2nd kings 5:14), even though I believe sprinkling is the more biblically connected to Baptismal cleansing of Scripture. I'm not condemning immersion, but declaring that it is incorrect for Christians to think that this is the only right way to baptize. Especially with all the scriptures illustrating sprinkling as a token of cleansing. And this I believe is really the position the church should take. The Westminster confession of faith, states:
Not that I take such papers as Scripture (it is not), but I do think this one line sums it up perfectly. Either mode is a legitimate baptism, but they rightly see that scriptures most often use cleansing by pouring or sprinkling water. They understand that the amount of water is not the issue. When we think about this coherently, what those who insist upon immersion are doing is putting the efficacy on the amount of water used "as if" there is some magic God formula in being covered with literal water. That would be like me saying in order for a communion service to be legitimate, the bread wafer must be baked 3 days and nights because Christ was in the earth 3 days and nights. That's not sound biblical exegesis. Or if I said it must be class AAA bread used in communion only, because my church thinks it's a better quality to represent Christ. Or if I said that the wine must be the finest we can get, because Jesus was the finest, perfect individual to ever live, etc. etc. Those kinds of man made rules or ordinances miss the mark. We don't have to be buried in water to signify being clean, or to receive the efficacy of being buried and resurrected with Christ. That is a man made requirement, but it is not what is God's command.
Let me give you another Biblical example. Remember when Jesus was washing the feet of His Disciples and how brother Peter thought our Lord shouldn't be washing their feet?
John 13:8-10
Jesus is equating the washing of feet with water, with the true washing of salvation. He's saying if He doesn't wash your feet, you're not a part of Me (You're not saved). Peter responds as the Immersionists today would, insisting to be washed all over "as if" this was the real cleansing in view, when it was just the sign. Christ didn't need to wash Peter's whole body with water because this washing was merely a token of His real cleansing. And that "little" washing of his feet was sufficient because it was only a sign. Christ goes on to say that they were clean with this washing of merely the feet, but not all were clean. In other words, He knew that Judas was still unsaved and thus still unclean. He was the one 'Not Clean' even though he was one of them who had their feet washed with water. i.e., there was no efficacy in the literal water or the amount of water. Jesus says if He washes just their feet, they are nonetheless clean all over. ... so how can that be? Think about it! It can be only because there is no efficacy in that amount of water washing. They are not actually washed clean by that water, but by the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are they clean all over. No burial in water necessary. That is why only the feet needed be washed and not immersing their whole body as Peter assumed. Because the amount of water isn't the point.
That should be a lesson to all of us on the principle of the sacrament of Baptism or Cleansing by water. Jesus gives us the commission saying as He washed our feet, so we are to go forth and wash others feet. As He saved us, we go forth with the gospel to save others. The great commission to evangelize the world and baptize them into Christ. And when we wash or baptize with water, we need not cover their whole body, for the efficacy is NOT in the water or in the amount of water, but of the Spirit. Judas could have been washed all over from head to toe and from dusk to dawn, and he still would have remained unclean. Because it's not in the mode of applying the water or the amount of water but of God who shows mercy. Likewise, a child of God could simply have his little pinky washed, and he would be clean all over.
In conclusion, sprinkling can be a legitimate baptism, as can pouring, dipping, dunking, splashing, washing or immersion. To be buried with Him in baptism, 'does not' mean we must be immersed in water, but that He took us with Him to death, through the refiner's fire and we were resurrected with Him clean from sin. It's signifying that we had our sins laid upon him, they were buried with Him, and we were raised up in His Resurrection unto a new birth. While there is nothing wrong with that way of putting the sign of baptism on believers, it is certainly not called for in scripture, nor does it invalidate sprinkling or pouring. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems Christians tend to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I think that the principle of Romans 14:15 applies here. If our Brother eats meat, let him eat meat. If he doesn't eat meat, fine, let him not eat meat. Neither eating meat, nor not eating meat is a sin. By the same token, neither NOT baptizing by immersion, nor NOT baptizing by sprinkling is a sin. Either way can glorify God. Let each do their baptism to the Glory of God in faith. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. If you want to be baptized by immersion, be baptized by immersion. If by Sprinkling, be baptized by Sprinkling, remembering that it is but a token of what Christ has done. The efficacy is not in the ceremony, it's in working of the Spirit within us. Judge not thy Brother in his mode of Baptism.
And "May the Lord give us all the wisdom to discern the truth of His most holy Word".
Amen.
Peace,
Copyright 1994 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
Moreover, those who even insist that baptism in water is synonymous with baptism in the Spirit are treading on dangerous ground. It is easily proven by scripture that this belief is Biblically indefensible.
Acts 8:15
- "Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.
- for as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
So here we see that although these people had been Baptized in water, they still were yet saved because they didn't yet have the Holy Ghost spiritually cleanse them. And God plainly tells us, He that doesn't have the Holy Spirit is none of His (Romans 8:9). Proof positive that water Baptism does not mean one has been Baptized in the Holy Spirit whereby he has been redeemed or saved. Baptism in water and the Holy Spirit can happen at the same time, or it can happen at different times. Because the water is merely a token. While anyone can set a date and time to be Baptized in water, no one can set a date for Baptizing in the Spirit but God. So then honestly, rationally and logically, how could water Baptism mean one is saved or not saved? Are we in control of our time of salvation or is God in control? We can set a date to have the sign of water put on us, but the Baptism that saves us is of the Spirit and could happen before water Baptism, or after or even not at all. That is basically what 1st Peter chapter three is illustrating. Water can cleanse our flesh of physical filth, but it cannot bring real salvation.
1st Peter 3:21
- "The like FIGURE whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Again, we are clearly told that Baptism does save us, but "NOT" the Baptism in water wherein you can put away the filth of the flesh (washing), but Baptism of the Spirit that is provided us by the redemption secured in the death and resurrection of Christ. Water Baptism is a figure, a sign, or a token of something infinitely more important. Water is the figure of the acknowledgement of a good conscience toward God. A token that we are made clean of our carnal nature. It is our new birth where we are born of water and baptized in this Spirit. And that work was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Christ, not by any man does of applying literal water.
Titus 3:5
- "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His Mercy He Saved us, by the wasking of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
We are regenerated by the cleansing of the Holy Spirit of God. That word translated regeneration means a spiritual nativity or a spiritual rebirth. We gladly put on the sign of water Baptism to signify the true washing that came when Christ reigns in our lives. John the Baptist baptized with the Baptism of repentance with physical water, but after the cross, Jesus made it so we were Baptized by a infinitely more permanent solution to the uncleanness of the flesh.
Luke 3:16
- "John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: He shall BAPTIZE you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire:"
Would John say, "I dip you with water but Jesus shall dip you with the Holy spirit and Fire?" No, because the word translated Baptize there [baptizo] does not mean dip, it means to wash or cleanse. Dip makes no sense in context. This is the "REAL" Baptism or cleansing that will take place with the coming of Christ. It's by the Holy Spirit, and it's by fire because we have gone through the 'refiner's fire' in His propitiation on our behalf. Not dipped in it, but we are cleansed in it. This is the "One Baptism" that only the Lord can provide.
Acts 11:16
- "Then remembered I the Word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with WATER; but ye shall be baptized with the HOLY GHOST."
The One Baptism that sprinkling, pouring or immersion merely represents. So knowing all these things, we know that the 'amount' of water, the position of the body or the mode of application has no bearing upon the token. Christians saying that you must be immersed in water to be legitimately baptized are claiming more than scripture will allow. They're adding church tradition to the word. One scripture that is often used in a attempt to prove Baptism must be done by immersion is Romans chapter 6:
Romans 6:3-6
- "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
- Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
- For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
- Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
At first glance this appears to support the view, however the sense is that we are buried with him by being baptized through His death. In other words, the work of Christ is finished and thereby we are washed clean by the Spirit into that completed work. i.e., our Spiritual regeneration is by the washing of Baptism, which is the result of His dying with our sins, and afterward being raised up without them. It is "not" saying that by our water baptism we are buried with Him into His death. That would makes no sense at all since Baptism doesn't kill, bury or raise us, rather it is the token of the "result" of His death, burial and resurrection. In other words, "water Baptism" publicly illustrates that we are the election, having been made part of His death, burial and resurrection through redemption from sin. Not by signifying our burial in water, but our washing by the Spirit through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. This can be better seen in Colossians:
Colossians 2:12
- "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
- And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"
The Baptism "wherein" you are risen with Him through Faith of the operation of God. This is not water Baptism, but the Baptism of the Spirit by which we are raised up in the finished work of Christ. This is the action whereby we, being dead in trespass and sin, were resurrected unto new life. It has nothing to do with Water Baptism except physical Baptism is a token of "this" work wherein we are cleansed. It is not really speaking of the quantity or depth of water, but the role, impetus, objective or purpose of this water--which is cleansing by Christ's death and resurrection. Not any actual burying in water. In the insistence by some that, "to be buried like Christ in death, you should be totally immersed," they are making a commentary, not declaring a biblical precept. Baptism is a synonym for cleansing or washing. Water Baptism is a 'token' or sign of the washing clean of the Holy Spirit, not a token of our immersion in the ground like He was. Water cleanses, it does not bury. It's a picture not of the immersion in dirt, but of the cleansing which was done inside us by Christ. If God had wanted Baptism to be a sign of burial, He would have had us bathe in dirt. On the contrary, baptism is a symbol of washing or cleansing, which is why it is done in water and also symbolized by fire. A refiners fire cleanses, and water cleanses, a tomb or burial does not take away filth. Christ did that by the efficacy of His death for us, not His burial. Even in the only instance in scripture that speaks of dipping in this manner (2nd kings 5:14), it is clearly to illustrate using water to wash and be clean, not to bury.
2nd Kings 5:13
- "And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?"
And this is God's representation of baptism, not of being buried, but of being cleansed in water wherein the amount is insignificant. Indeed no one would deny that it is true that Baptism is brought about by the death of Christ, but that is not the picture water represents. e.g., wine in communion is a picture of the blood of Christ cleansing us, but it's not a picture of burial. A dove is a picture of the Spirit upon us, but it's not a picture of a coffin. Bread is a picture of the body of Christ, but it's not a picture of us eating a tomb. Yet they are all related, and surely one could say that the communion bread represents the death and burial of Christ. But that is NOT the picture put forth by using the symbol of 'bread.' Rather, it's a representation of the Spiritual food of life that we will live by. A portrait of the word of God. Neither is using water a symbol of burying anyone, it's a symbol of what we use to wash clean with. When Colossians says we are 'buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,' it merely means that it is by His death and resurrection laden with our sins, that we receive the cleansing of the Spirit. i.e., He died for us, and the efficacy in the cleansing of the Spirit is by His work on the cross. Water is not being equated with dirt or burial, cleansing is being equated to be by Christ's death and resurrection.
To believe that immersion is the only way to Baptize is nonsense, but immersion is fine if that's the way we want to symbolize cleansing. I see nothing inherently wrong with that (2nd kings 5:14), even though I believe sprinkling is the more biblically connected to Baptismal cleansing of Scripture. I'm not condemning immersion, but declaring that it is incorrect for Christians to think that this is the only right way to baptize. Especially with all the scriptures illustrating sprinkling as a token of cleansing. And this I believe is really the position the church should take. The Westminster confession of faith, states:
Not that I take such papers as Scripture (it is not), but I do think this one line sums it up perfectly. Either mode is a legitimate baptism, but they rightly see that scriptures most often use cleansing by pouring or sprinkling water. They understand that the amount of water is not the issue. When we think about this coherently, what those who insist upon immersion are doing is putting the efficacy on the amount of water used "as if" there is some magic God formula in being covered with literal water. That would be like me saying in order for a communion service to be legitimate, the bread wafer must be baked 3 days and nights because Christ was in the earth 3 days and nights. That's not sound biblical exegesis. Or if I said it must be class AAA bread used in communion only, because my church thinks it's a better quality to represent Christ. Or if I said that the wine must be the finest we can get, because Jesus was the finest, perfect individual to ever live, etc. etc. Those kinds of man made rules or ordinances miss the mark. We don't have to be buried in water to signify being clean, or to receive the efficacy of being buried and resurrected with Christ. That is a man made requirement, but it is not what is God's command.
Let me give you another Biblical example. Remember when Jesus was washing the feet of His Disciples and how brother Peter thought our Lord shouldn't be washing their feet?
John 13:8-10
- "Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me.
- Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord NOT MY FEET ONLY, but also my hands and my head!
- Jesus saith to him, He that is Washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and yea are all clean, but not all."
Jesus is equating the washing of feet with water, with the true washing of salvation. He's saying if He doesn't wash your feet, you're not a part of Me (You're not saved). Peter responds as the Immersionists today would, insisting to be washed all over "as if" this was the real cleansing in view, when it was just the sign. Christ didn't need to wash Peter's whole body with water because this washing was merely a token of His real cleansing. And that "little" washing of his feet was sufficient because it was only a sign. Christ goes on to say that they were clean with this washing of merely the feet, but not all were clean. In other words, He knew that Judas was still unsaved and thus still unclean. He was the one 'Not Clean' even though he was one of them who had their feet washed with water. i.e., there was no efficacy in the literal water or the amount of water. Jesus says if He washes just their feet, they are nonetheless clean all over. ... so how can that be? Think about it! It can be only because there is no efficacy in that amount of water washing. They are not actually washed clean by that water, but by the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are they clean all over. No burial in water necessary. That is why only the feet needed be washed and not immersing their whole body as Peter assumed. Because the amount of water isn't the point.
That should be a lesson to all of us on the principle of the sacrament of Baptism or Cleansing by water. Jesus gives us the commission saying as He washed our feet, so we are to go forth and wash others feet. As He saved us, we go forth with the gospel to save others. The great commission to evangelize the world and baptize them into Christ. And when we wash or baptize with water, we need not cover their whole body, for the efficacy is NOT in the water or in the amount of water, but of the Spirit. Judas could have been washed all over from head to toe and from dusk to dawn, and he still would have remained unclean. Because it's not in the mode of applying the water or the amount of water but of God who shows mercy. Likewise, a child of God could simply have his little pinky washed, and he would be clean all over.
In conclusion, sprinkling can be a legitimate baptism, as can pouring, dipping, dunking, splashing, washing or immersion. To be buried with Him in baptism, 'does not' mean we must be immersed in water, but that He took us with Him to death, through the refiner's fire and we were resurrected with Him clean from sin. It's signifying that we had our sins laid upon him, they were buried with Him, and we were raised up in His Resurrection unto a new birth. While there is nothing wrong with that way of putting the sign of baptism on believers, it is certainly not called for in scripture, nor does it invalidate sprinkling or pouring. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems Christians tend to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I think that the principle of Romans 14:15 applies here. If our Brother eats meat, let him eat meat. If he doesn't eat meat, fine, let him not eat meat. Neither eating meat, nor not eating meat is a sin. By the same token, neither NOT baptizing by immersion, nor NOT baptizing by sprinkling is a sin. Either way can glorify God. Let each do their baptism to the Glory of God in faith. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. If you want to be baptized by immersion, be baptized by immersion. If by Sprinkling, be baptized by Sprinkling, remembering that it is but a token of what Christ has done. The efficacy is not in the ceremony, it's in working of the Spirit within us. Judge not thy Brother in his mode of Baptism.
And "May the Lord give us all the wisdom to discern the truth of His most holy Word".
Amen.
Peace,
Copyright 1994 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
