Document: pub/resurces/text/exeout/EXEOUT04.TXT "BAPTISM - A Special Study" by Mark A. Copeland The following outlines are from The_"EXECUTABLE_OUTLINES"_Series, freeware programs containing collections of sermon outlines and study guides in menu-driven executable file format with search, print, and save features. If you would like to receive a free copy of the latest available program on a disk, send your mailing address to Mark Copeland (markcopeland@delphi.com). The "Executable Outlines" Series, Copyright (c) Mark A. Copeland 1994 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "BAPTISM" A Special Study CONTENTS Is Baptism Essential To Salvation? Arguments Against Baptism Answered - The Baptism Of Jesus Is Our Example - Jesus' Blood Remits Sins, Not Baptism - Baptism Is A Work, We're Not Saved By Works - Paul Was Sent To Preach, Not Baptize - What About The Thief On The Cross? Sprinkling, Pouring, Or Immersion? What About Infant Baptism? What About "Re-Baptism?" For Your Further Study This material is free to use, copy, and distribute, provided it is done without cost to those to whom it is given. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "BAPTISM" Is Baptism Essential To Salvation? INTRODUCTION 1. The gospel of Jesus Christ tells of God's wonderful grace, how in love He gave His Only Begotten Son to die on the cross for sins 2. How must man respond to benefit from God's saving grace? a. By faith and repentance? Certainly! b. But is that all? 3. What about baptism? Is it necessary for one to be baptized to... a. Be saved? b. Be forgiven our sins? c. Receive the blessings of God's grace offered through Jesus? 4. This study is devoted to answering these questions by simply let- ing the Bible speak for itself on the subject of baptism and what bearing, if any, baptism may have on being saved from our sins [To begin, notice the words of Jesus as He commissioned the apostles to proclaim the gospel to the world...] I. BAPTISM IN THE GREAT COMMISSION A. IN TWO GOSPEL ACCOUNTS, JESUS MENTIONS BAPTISM 1. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptiz- ing them..." - Mt 28:19 2. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every crea- ture. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." - Mk 16:15-16 B. FROM JESUS HIMSELF, WE LEARN THAT BAPTISM IS SOMEHOW INVOLVED IN... 1. The process of becoming a disciple 2. The process of salvation [Before we draw any final conclusions just on these two statements alone, consider the preaching of the apostles as they carried out the Great Commission...] II. BAPTISM IN THE PREACHING OF THE APOSTLES A. THE PREACHING OF PETER 1. In Ac 2:38, Peter commanded people to be baptized "for the remission of sins" a. Does "for" mean "in order to" or "because of"? b. Note that we find the same grammatical construction in Mt 26:28 1) Where Jesus said His blood would be shed for many "for the remission sins" 2) Clearly Jesus meant "in order to" provide remission of sins, and not "because" remission of sins had already occurred c. Note also that in Ac 2:38 baptism is joined by the con- junction "and" to the command "repent" 1) Both are commanded "for the remission of sins" 2) Just as people were commanded to repent "for" (in order to) the remission of sins, so they were commanded to be baptized "for" (in order to) the remission of sins 2. In Ac 10:44-48, Peter clearly commanded baptism (in water) -- Peter's preaching is in harmony with the statements of Jesus in the Great Commission B. THE PREACHING OF PHILIP 1. Examine carefully two accounts of Philip's preaching a. The Samaritans - Ac 8:5, 12 b. The Ethiopian - Ac 8:35-38 2. In both cases, Philip "preached Christ" a. Yet baptism was an immediate result of such preaching b. Is there any surprise in light of Jesus' statements in Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:15-16? C. THE PREACHING OF PAUL 1. Consider the conversion of Lydia - Ac 16:13-15 a. Lydia gave heed to the things spoken by Paul, by being baptized! b. Notice her comment in Ac 16:15 1) How could Paul have judged her to be faithful to the Lord? 2) One clear way was by her response to the command of the Lord concerning baptism! 2. The conversion of the Philippian jailor - Ac 16:29-33 a. Telling the jailor first that he must believe on the Lord to be saved, Paul went on to speak concerning the Word of the Lord to him and his family b. In response to the word of the Lord, they were immediately baptized! c. Evidently the word of the Lord stressed the need to be baptized quickly (in fact, in EVERY detailed example of conversion found in the Book of Acts, people were baptized after only one lesson!) 3. Paul's account of his own conversion - Ac 22:10-16 a. He was told to go to Damascus to learn what he must do b. One of the things he was told was to be baptized without delay - Ac 22:16 1) "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on the name of the Lord." 2) NOTE WELL: Despite seeing the Lord on the road to Damascus, having spent three days fasting and praying (Ac 9:9-11), he was STILL IN HIS SINS! c. Clearly Paul believed that baptism had some connection with his own salvation! [The connection between baptism and salvation becomes clearer when the examples of apostolic preaching are put side by side and the elements of conversion are compared: +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Mt 28:18-19 EXAMPLES OF CONVERSION Mk 16:15-16 +-------------------------------------------------------------------- PREACHING BELIEVED REPENTED CONFESSED BAPTIZED SAVED PENTECOST Repented Baptized Remission of Ac2:14-41 37-38 38-41 Sins 38-47 SAMARIA Believed Baptized Ac 8:5-13 12 12,13 EUNUCH Believed Confessed Baptized Rejoiced Ac 8:35-39 36-37 37 38 39 SAUL Baptized Sins Washed Ac 9:17-18 18 Away Ac 22:16 CORNELIUS Believed Baptized Remission of Ac 10:34-48 43 48 Sins 43 LYDIA Heeded Baptized Faithful Ac 16:13-15 14 15 15 THE JAILER Believed Baptized Rejoiced Ac 16:30-34 31 33 34 -------------------------------------------------------------------- PREACHING + FAITH + REPENTANCE + CONFESSION + BAPTISM = SALVATION Ro 10:14 He 5:8,9 Lk 13:3 Ro 10:9,10 Ga 3:27 2 Ti 2:10 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ In every case of conversion, baptism precedes salvation which is in agreement with what Jesus said in Mk 16:16, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." In every case of conversion, baptism is involved in the process of becoming a true disciple of Christ, which agrees with Christ's words in Mt 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them..." But to be sure that our conclusions are correct, let's consider what the apostles taught in their epistles concerning baptism . . .] III. BAPTISM IN THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES A. IN THE TEACHING OF PAUL 1. In Ro 6:3-8, we learn that baptism: a. Is a baptism into the death of Christ (3) b. Is a burial with Him into death (4) c. Is done in order that we might walk in newness of life (4) d. Assures that we shall be united with Christ in His resurrection (5) e. Involves crucifying the old man, that the body of sin may be destroyed (6) f. Frees us from sin (6-7) g. Assures our living with Him (8) h. Note Paul's preface to these remarks: "as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were..." 1) What blessings he discusses pertains only to those who had been baptized! 2) What of those not baptized? The blessings described would not apply! 2. From Ga 3:26-27 we learn that baptism is: a. Involved in the process of becoming sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus (the "for" beginning verse 27 begins an elaboration as to HOW we become sons of God through faith) b. The means by which we "put on Christ" (and so become sons of God) c. Note again: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on . . ." 1) "For as many" means no more or no less 2) Only those who have been baptized into Christ have really received Christ into their lives! 3. In Co 2:11-13 Paul taught that baptism is: a. A "spiritual circumcision" in which sins are "cut away" b. A burial with Christ, and also a resurrection with Him c. Made effective "through faith in the working of God" d. Where God makes us "alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" -- IF BY THE WORKING OF GOD BAPTISM INTO CHRIST ACCOMPLISHES ALL THESE THINGS, HOW COULD ANYONE SAY IT IS NOT NECESSARY? B. THE TEACHING OF PETER 1. In 1 Pe 3:20-21, Peter makes a comparison between Noah's salvation and our own a. Noah was saved by: 1) Grace (Ge 6:8) 2) Faith (He 11:7) 3) Water b. Likewise, our salvation involves grace, faith (Ep 2:8), and water! 1) NOT that there is any cleansing power in the water! 2) For only the blood of Jesus can redeem us from sin - Ep 1:7 3) But God has chosen to use the act of baptism as the point in time in which He applies the blood of Jesus to our souls! 2. Perhaps we can see why Peter would say "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism . . ." a. We are saved by the blood of Jesus, yes b. But the application of Christ's blood to our souls occurs when we in trusting faith are united with Him in baptism! CONCLUSION 1. Is baptism essential to salvation? Let the words of Christ, the preaching and teaching of His apostles provide the answer! 2. All the rationalization that can be done by man cannot escape the fact that man must respond in baptism as well as in faith and repentance if he is going to receive the blessings of God's grace! 3. But what if one chooses not to obey the words of Christ and His apostles? Then what Paul said on one occasion to listeners who would not obey the gospel would be applicable: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." - Ac 13:46 It is my prayer that if you have not yet properly responded to the Word of the Lord, that you will heed the same words given to Paul: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." - Ac 22:16 "BAPTISM" Arguments Against Baptism Answered ABOUT THIS SECTION When someone suggests that baptism into Christ is essential to our salvation, several objections or arguments are frequently raised by those who sincerely differ. This section provide answers to arguments commmonly presented. These answers are taken from "DENOMINATIONAL DOCTRINES," Chapter Six, "Arguments Against Baptism Answered," (Samuel G. Dawson, Gospel Themes Press). "JESUS WASN'T BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS AND WE ARE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE!" We can agree with much within this argument. For example, we are to follow the example of Christ (1 Jn 2:6; 1 Co 11:1). We can also agree that Jesus was not baptized for the remission of His sins, for indeed He had no sin (He 4:15). However, the fact He had no sin itself might show something different between His baptism and ours. Why was Jesus baptized anyway? Do those who make this argument against baptism follow it consistently, and submit to baptism for the same reason Jesus did? In Jn 1:29-34, John the Baptist told why he baptized Jesus: 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Indeed, the reason John baptized Jesus was not for the remission of His sins, but to enable God to show John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah He promised in the Old Testament! God had told John the Baptist that one day while he baptized people, the Spirit would descend on one of them in the form of a dove. When this happened, John would know he had baptized the Messiah. Now, who do you know who ought to be baptized for the same reason Jesus was? Who has been baptized for the same reason Jesus was? Today, none of us follows the example of Jesus in being baptized so God can show we are the Messiah! "THE BLOOD OF CHRIST REMITS OUR SINS, NOT BAPTISM!" Without exception, everyone who reads these words, and who believes the Bible, accepts that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our sins. Before we discuss the relation of baptism to the remission of sins, let's ask ourselves why we universally agree Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of our sins? Wasn't it because the Lord Himself said in Mt 26:28, 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Certainly, we can all accept this plain statement from the lips of our Lord Himself. Why then can we not accept the words of His apostle Peter, when in Ac 2:38, Peter used identically the same language in the Greek about baptism: 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we can't believe Peter in Ac 2:38 when he said baptism was for the remission of sins, why would we believe Jesus when He used the same words to say His blood was shed for the remission of sins? If on the other hand, we believe Jesus when He said His blood was shed for the remission of sins, why shouldn't we as well believe Peter when he used the same words to say baptism was for the remission of sins? If someone should argue that "for" or "unto" means "because of" in Ac 2:38, i.e., we are to be baptized because our sins have already been remitted, why would not identical language mean that Jesus shed His blood because our sins had already been remitted, and therefore the blood of Christ has nothing to do with the remission of sins? Surely, we can see that whatever purpose Jesus accomplished when He shed His blood, the same purpose is accomplished by the baptism of a penitent believer in the name of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, it is by no means unusual to meet denominational preachers who have had a smattering of exposure to the Greek language who insist the word translated "for" or "unto" means "because of" in Ac 2:38. However, when pressed for a New Testament translation that so translates the word, they universally meet with failure. Denominational SCHOLARS generally will not sacrifice their scholarship in favor of their denominational doctrine... G.R. Beasley-Murray, Principal of Spurgeon's College in London, later Senior Professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, wrote a modern classic, Baptism In The New Testament. He gives chapters which thoroughly discuss baptism in the Gospels, in Acts, in Paul's writings, and in other apostolic writings. In his introduction, Beasley-Murray said: This book is intended to offer a Baptist contribution to the discussions on baptism that are taking place throughout the Christian world. But the indefinite article should be observed; the impression must not be given that my interpre- tations are characteristic of Baptist thought generally. At most it can be claimed that they represent a trend gaining momentum among Baptists in Europe. I have striven to inter- pret the evidence of the New Testament as a Christian scholar, rather than as a member of a particular Christian Confession. (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism In The New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962, pp. v-vi.) >From his chapter on baptism in Acts, Beasley-Murray said: Consequently, baptism is regarded in Acts as the occasion and means of receiving the blessings conferred by the Lord of the Kingdom. Admittedly, this way of reading the evidence is not characteristic of our thinking, but the intention of the author is tolerably clear. (Ibid., p. 102) Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as to intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized in the name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the Holy Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate forgiveness of his sins. (Ibid., p. 108) >From his chapter on baptism in the apostolic writings, concerning Romans 6:3-4, Beasley-Murray said: We that are Baptists have largely ignored this aspect of Pauline teaching; even when we have heard it we have hesitated to accept, partly no doubt because of the one-sided emphasis it has often received but partly also because we have not known how to deal with it. But misapplication of truth must never be permitted to make us insensitive to it. (Ibid., pp. 142-143) Some concluding statments were: In light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament rep- resentations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the New Testament itself. Admitedly, such a judgment runs counter to the popular tradition of the Denom- ination to which the writer belongs... The extent and nature of the grace which the New Testament writers declare to be present in baptism is astonishing for any who come to the study freshly with an open mind. ...the "grace" available to man in baptism is said by the New Testament writers to include the following elements: forgiveness of sin, Ac 2.38 and cleansing from sins, Ac 22.16, 2 Co 6.11; union with Christ, Ga 3.27, and particularly union with Him in his death and resurrection, Ro. 6.3ff, Co 2.11f, with all that implies of release from sin's power, as well as guilt, and the sharing of the risen life of the Redeemer, Ro 6.1-11; participation in Christ's sonship, Ga 3.26f; consecration to God, 1 Co 6.11, hence membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, 1 Co 12.13, Ga 3.27-29; possession of the Spirit, Ac 2.38, 1 Co 6.11, 12.13, and therefore the new life in the Spirit, i.e., regeneration, Ti 3.5, Jn 3.5; grace to live according to the will of God, Ro 6.1ff, Co 3.1ff; deliverance from the evil powers that rule this world, Co 1.13; the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, Jn 3.5, and the pledge of the resurrection of the body, Ep 1.3f, 4.30. (Ibid., pp. 263-264) Beasley-Murray stated his conclusion in a chapter entitled "Baptismal Reform and Church Relationships": First, there ought to be a greater endeavor to make baptism integral to THE GOSPEL. It is taken as axiomatic amongst us [Baptists - SGD] that the proclamation of the Gospel consists of making the redemptive acts of God in Christ known and call- ing for faith in Christ as the due response; baptism is then a proper subject for exposition in the enquirers' class, along with instruction as to the nature of the Church, of worship, of Christian obligation in the Church and to the world, etc. Peter's response, however, to the cry of his conscience striken hearers on the Day of Pentecost was not "Repent and believe", but "Repent and BE BAPTIZED"! (Ac 2.38). Naturally faith was presumed in repentance, but Peter's answer told the Jews how to become Christians: faith and repentance are to be expressed in baptism, and SO they are to come to the Lord. Baptism is here a part of the proclamation of Christ. In an Apostolic sermon it comes as its logical conclusion. An effort ought to be made to restore this note in our [Baptist - SGD] preaching. (Ibid., p. 393) Thus, we believe the blood of Jesus was shed for the remission of sins, because the Bible says it. Likewise, we believe baptism is for the remission of sins, because the same Bible says it in identically the same words. "BAPTISM IS A WORK, AND WE'RE NOT SAVED BY WORKS" Baptism is a work, or a thing done, and we're not saved by works of a distinct kind, that is, works of merit. We are impressd with what many people in the religious world have been exposed to in the way of false teaching about baptism, and why they're leery of believing that baptism has anything to do with man's salvation. Our Roman Catholic friends believe baptism is a work of merit, i.e., the act itself merits salvation whether any faith exists behind the act or not. For example, the following quotations from several official Catholic publications show that baptism often is not an act of faith at all: Valid reception does not require faith...Therefore, an un- believer who so desires may be validly baptized even though he have no faith. (Jone-Adelman, MORAL THEOLOGY, p. 320, cited by O. C. Lambert, CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF, VOL. II, Winfield, AL, O. C. Lambert, Publisher, 1966, pp. 218-222.) Likewise, Catholic sources teach one need not even be conscious when he is baptized: Baptize any person found unconscious and in a dying condi- tion. (Ayrinhac, LEGISLATION ON THE SACRAMENTS, p. 32, cited by O. C. Lambert, Ibid.) On baptizing infants, Catholics teach: Many priests find this the least spiritualizing of all their works in the Church. The fact that the recipient of the sacrament is unconscious of what is being done, and often in consequences behaves in a manner not befitting the occasion, undoubtedly detracts from the solemnity of the rite. (Ward, THE PRIESTLY VOCATION, p. 89, cited by O. C. Lambert, Ibid.) Two of the most amazing statements showing Catholics don't view baptism as an act of faith, but a mere meritorious work, are the following: A miscarried fetus or embryo, no matter how small, must always be baptized - absolutely if certainly alive, con- ditionally if doubtfully alive. (Gerald H. Fitz Gibbons, SPIRITUAL FIRST AID PROCEDURES, p. 3, cited by O. C. Lam- bert, Ibid.) The general rule is, of course, that a child should not be baptized until fully born. But if there is a danger that the child will die of suffocation, or from some other cause before complete delivery, it should be baptized on the first available members. (Rumble, QUIZZES ON HOSPITAL ETHICS, p. 56, cited by O. C. Lambert, Ibid.) These statements regarding baptism as a meritorious work not contin- gent on the faith of the subject are as repulsive to us as to the one who argues that since baptism is a work, it has nothing to do with our salvation. However, just because Roman Catholicism goes to one extreme about baptism, we shouldn't go to another extreme where we don't teach the truth about baptism either. The argument that works have nothing to do with salvation is just as as false as the idea that meritorious works do. For example, the statement that works have nothing to do with salvation is not just an argument against baptism, but also an argu- ment against repentance, for it is a "thing done." Likewise, confes- sion is a work - not a meritious one, but certainly "unto salvation" (Ro 10:9-10). Similarly, faith itself is a work, for Jn 6:28-29 says: 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Thus, if works have nothing to do with our salvation, then faith itself would have nothing to do with the salvation of a person! The truth of the matter is, GOD works in baptism. Paul said in Col 2:12, 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. In the next verse Paul told about the work [operation] God does when we are baptized with this faith: 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; When we have "faith in the working [operation] of God," rather than thinking baptism has nothing to do with our salvation or perhaps even being unconscious to the act, and are baptized, God forgives us our sins, and raises us up with Christ to walk in newness of life. [A COUPLE OF FINAL POINTS: 1) Baptism is the most PASSIVE act (or work) of faith required to receive Christ and the blessings He provides. In other words, "believing" is something we must DO, "repenting" is something we must DO, and "confessing Christ" is something we must DO. Baptism, on the other hand, is something DONE TO US. "Faith," "repentance," and "confession" are all ACTIVE acts of faith on our part. "Baptism" is but a PASSIVE act of faith in which we submit to the working of God in our lives (cf. Co 2:12). To object to baptism because it requires man to "do" something would require one to object to "faith," "repentance," and "confession," for they also require man to "do" something! 2) It helps me to think of baptism as a "spiritual operation" in which the "Great Physician" does His Work. When I need surgery my faith in the skills of a physician allows me to submit to the operating table. So my faith in God and in the death of His Son for my sins prompted me to submit to the "spiritual operation" of baptism, in which God did His wonderful work of cleansing by the blood of Jesus and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Ti 3:5)! -- MAC] "PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE, THEREFORE BAPTISM MUST NOT BE ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION!" People who take this position use 1 Co 1:11-17 to substantiate their view: 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Rather than showing Paul didn't think baptism was very important, this passage demonstrates the essentiality of baptism. First, notice the context of these words. Corinth, a church wracked with nearly every conceivable problem, also had a problem with its attitude toward preachers. In this very passage, Paul mentioned that he learned they were divided over the preacher who baptized them. In this context, Paul said he was glad he hadn't baptized any more of them than he had. This was not because he didn't think baptism was important, but lest any man should say that he was baptized into Paul's name. Indeed, Paul baptized a few of them while there. Many were baptized by other men, as Luke's account of Paul's work in Corinth in Ac 18:8 shows: 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. So many were baptized, yet because of the specific problem in Corinth, Paul was glad that he hadn't personally baptized more of them, lest an even greater number would be calling themselves after him. About the structure of Paul's language in 1 Co 1:17, "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize BUT to preach the gospel," this is an excel- lent example of an ellipsis, a figure of speech where certain words not directly expressed are understood. Other scriptural examples illustrate how we are to interpret these words. For example, in 1 Pe 3:3-4, Peter said, 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. In this passage, which is similar in construction to 1 Co 1:17, Peter didn't forbid putting on apparel - surely women were to adorn themselves with clothing, but he placed the emphasis upon women's inward adorning, the adorning of their spirit! Similarly, in Jn 6:27, Jesus used this construction when He said, 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Plainly, Jesus didn't prohibit working for physical food (Paul in 2 Th 3:10 said: "If any will not work, neither let him eat.") but He showed where we should place the emphasis, i.e., spiritual food should take precedence over physical food. Likewise, when Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach, he didn't depreciate baptism. Christ merely showed where Paul should place the emphasis, i.e., upon preaching the word of God. When the apostles delivered the gospel, it was more important that they preach. At that time, not just anybody could teach the word of God, but anybody could baptize! Thus, the apostles rightly emphasized their preaching over baptizing believers themselves. In addition, Luke in Ac 18:8 said Crispus believed, whereas Paul said Crispus was baptized in his account in 1 Co 1:14. This merely shows that "belief" in the Bible included baptism. Crispus was a believer because he placed his confidence in Christ enough to obey Him - he believed in Christ enough to be baptized for the remission of his sins! Those who argue about Jesus' teaching on baptism ought to have the same faith Crispus had! In this passage Paul also taught two things must happen before one may call himself after another person. He said for one to call himself after Paul, (1) Paul would have to be crucified for the person, and (2) the person would have to be baptized in the name of Paul. That neither of these was true should prohibit the Corinthians from calling themselves after Paul. Consider carefully what Paul's argument means positively: for one to be called after Christ, two things must happen: (1) Christ would have to die for the person, and (2) the person would have to be baptized in the name of Christ! Thus, the very passage so many people use to show that baptism is not essential proves true belief includes baptism (as it did in the case of Crispus) and for one to be called a "Christian," he must be baptized in the name of Christ! "WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS? HE WASN'T BAPTIZED, AND YET JESUS SAID HE WOULD BE WITH HIM IN PARADISE!" The case of the thief on the cross has to be the most often offered objection to the necessity of penitent believers being baptized in our time. People argue, "The thief on the cross wasn't baptized, and yet Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise." This argument deserves an honest and forthright reply. First, how do you know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized? What makes you think he wasn't? Remember how John the Baptist preached and baptized in this region, and the gospels tell how he met with stupendous success (Mt 3:1-6; Lk 3:7,12): MATTHEW 3 1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. LUKE 3 7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? Suppose someone could make statements like this about the community where you live, i.e., all the city had gone out to be baptized, that all the region around your city had, that multitudes had, and even the federal employees had! Would you be dogmatic that a certain individual in your community had not been baptized? Of course, no one knows for sure whether the thief on the cross was baptized by John's baptism. However, the success of John's preaching shows that those who assume the thief was not baptized have no basis to make this assumption. [ANOTHER POINT COULD BE MADE: The thief evidently had a remarkable understanding of the nature of Jesus and His Kingdom, for notice that despite the imminent death of Jesus Himself, we read in Lk 23:42... 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Somehow the thief knew that death itself could not prevent Jesus from coming into His kingdom! Many of Jesus' closest disciples did not understand that, thinking that the death of Jesus ended all their hopes (cf. Lk Lk 24:13-27). Is it not conceivable that the thief may have been a backsliding disciple himself, having been baptized of John, then going back into his old ways, only to be caught and sentenced to be crucified, but then repenting as he sees Jesus being crucified with him? -- MAC] Whether the thief on the cross was baptized in John's baptism, he was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Christ hadn't commanded anyone in the world to be baptized in His name at the time Jesus was crucified. The thief on the cross was never commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Not until fifty days later, when the gospel was first preached in fact on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ, were believers told: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." (Ac 2:38) So the thief on the cross couldn't have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ - he wasn't commanded to! Have you been commanded to? Suppose that someone refuses to pay his income tax, and when confronted by a federal judge, argues he doesn't have to pay income tax because Abraham Lincoln didn't pay income tax. That judge will inform him the laws have changed somewhat since the times of Lincoln and now demand it. Similarly, one might argue that he doesn't have to put money in parking meters because his great grandfather didn't. He, too, will be informed the laws have changed since great-granddad's day. We are to obey the laws we live under, not the laws someone else lived under. Likewise, the thief on the cross lived under the law of Moses. He was not under the covenant you and I are subject to, for Christ's covenant didn't go into effect until He died (He 9:16-17). The thief never heard the words Christ directs to believers today: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. CONCLUSION When all men's arguments fall, the Bible's teaching on this subject is still the same. Ac 2:38 still teaches baptism is for the remission of sins: 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Ac 22:16 still teaches baptism washes away sins: 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Mk 16:16 still teaches: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 1 Co 12:13 still teaches that baptism puts us into the body of Christ: 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Ga 3:27 still teaches baptism puts us into Christ: 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Ro 6:3-4 still teaches baptism puts us into the death of Christ: 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 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. Co 2:12-13 still teaches that through baptism we obtain the newness of life: 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. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 1 Pe 3:21 still teaches that baptism saves us: 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The first time the gospel was preached, "They then that received his word were baptized," (Ac 2:41). People today who receive the gospel do the same thing. Friend, if you will believe in Jesus Christ, and have repented, i.e., determined that you will live according to His teaching, won't you confess His name before men and be baptized for the reasons HE said while you have opportunity? "BAPTISM" Sprinkling, Pouring, Or Immersion? INTRODUCTION 1. In the previous study, we saw that baptism is essential to: a. SALVATION - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16 b. BECOMING DISCIPLES OF CHRIST - Mt 28:19-20; Ga 3:27 2. But even when the essentiality of baptism has been established, several questions remain: a. Is baptism to be immersion, pouring, or sprinkling? Does it make any difference? b. Should infants be baptized? c. Is there every any reason to be "re-baptized?" [This lesson examines the first of these questions: "Is baptism to be sprinkling, pouring or immersion?"] I. CONSIDER THE FIGURES OF SPEECH USED TO DESCRIBE BAPTISM A. ROMANS 6:3-5 1. In baptism, we are "buried with Him...into death" 2. Baptism is a "likeness of his death" B. COLOSSIANS 2:12 1. In baptism, we are "buried with Him" 2. "in which, you were also raised with Him" C. WHICH OF THE THREE ACTIONS (IMMERSION, POURING, SPRINKLING) IS: 1. A "burial?" (only immersion) 2. A "likeness of His death?" (only immersion) 3. A "likeness of His resurrection?" (only immersion) II. CONSIDER THE GREEK WORDS FOR "BAPTIZE" AND "BAPTISM" A. THE WORDS ARE "BAPTIZO" AND "BAPTISMA" 1. Notice that the words "baptize" and "baptism" are not actually TRANSLATIONS of the Greek words 2. They are TRANSLITERATIONS (where Greek letters in a word are simply given their English equivalents) 3. To determine the actual meaning of the words, we must go to authorities on the Greek language B. ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING GREEK LEXICONS, "BAPTIZE" MEANS "TO IMMERSE, TO PLUNGE, TO DIP": 1. Greek-English Lexicon Of The N.T. (THAYER) 2. Greek-English Lexicon, 7th Edition (LIDDEL & SCOTT) 3. Greek Lexicon Of The Roman And Byzantine Periods (SOPHOCLES) 4. Biblio-Theological Lexicon Of N.T. Words (CREMER) 5. To quote VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF N.T. WORDS: "baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence" C. NOT ONE STANDARD GREEK LEXICON DEFINES "BAPTIZO" AS "SPRINKLE" OR "POUR" 1. In fact, there are completely different words in Greek for "pouring" (CHENO) and "sprinkling" (RAINO) 2. It is important to keep in mind concerning "baptize" and "baptism": a. That they are simply "transliterations" b. That they were transliterated instead of translated in our Bibles to avoid offending those who practice pouring or sprinkling c. But when translated into English, they can only mean "to immerse" and "immersion"! D. WHAT ABOUT MODERN ENGLISH DICTIONARIES? 1. It is true that they define baptism as sprinkling, pouring, or immersion 2. But their definitions reflect common usage of words by people TODAY 3. To know exactly what was meant by Jesus and His apostles, we must consult authorities who define how words were used in BIBLICAL TIMES! III. CONSIDER WHAT VARIOUS SCHOLARS SAY A. THESE SCHOLARS WERE MEMBERS OF DENOMINATIONS WHICH PRACTICE POURING OR SPRINKLING... 1. EPISCOPALIAN a. "This passage (Ro 6:4) cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion" - CONYBEARE & HOWSON (Life And Epistles Of St. Paul) b. "Baptism means immersion; and it was immersion...Unless it had been so, Paul's analogical argument about our being buried with Christ in baptism would have had no meaning. Nothing could have been simpler than baptism in its first form. When a convert declared his faith in Christ, he was taken at once to the nearest pool or stream of water and plunged into it, and henceforward he was recognized as one of the Christian community." - CUNNINGHAM (The Growth Of The Church) c. "Baptism is the grave of the old man and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the be- liever buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. This baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and resurrection of Christ." - BISHOP LIGHTFOOT (Commentary) 2. METHODIST a. "Alluding to the 'immersion' practiced in the case of 'adults,' wherein the person appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth; His rising again the third day, and their emerging from the water, was an emblem of the resurrection of the body." - ADAM CLARKE (Commentary on Colossians 2:12) b. "'We are buried with him.' Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." - JOHN WESLEY (Notes) 3. LUTHERAN a. "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century (the first) without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." - MOSHEIM (Mosheim's Church History) b. "For the explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well-known circumstance that in the early days of the church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below and then raised above the water." - THOLUCK (Commentary on Romans) 4. CATHOLIC - "For thirteen hundred years was baptism an immer- sion of the person under water." - BRENNER B. HOW DO WE RECONCILE THESE SCHOLARS WITH THEIR DENOMINATIONS' PRACTICE? 1. Since these scholars (and many others) admit and affirm that immersion is the only "form" of baptism taught in the Bible, are they to be charged with dishonesty and insincerity because they practiced "sprinkling" or "pouring"? 2. Not necessarily, rather they fell into the fallacy of assuming: a. Apostolic commands and examples are not binding b. Human wisdom may alter specific Bible teaching in what they call "rites" or "customs" 3. But Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day for making the same mistake! - Mt 15:1-9; Mk 7:1-13 a. Laying aside the commandments of God, they were keeping traditions of men b. By keeping certain traditions, they were not keeping the commandments of God! 4. When one practices pouring or sprinkling, they are keeping traditions of men; they render the commandment of God to be immersed (baptized) of no effect! 5. Though sincere, one is not necessarily right; we are right only when we do the Father's will! - Mt 7:21-23 CONCLUSION 1. What have we learned? a. That "sprinkling" or "pouring" is inconsistent with the FIGURES OF SPEECH used in the Bible to describe baptism b. That the Greek words can only mean "immersion" c. That there is no question "immersion" was the mode of baptism in the Bible and the early church 2. As a final confirmation, consider the account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch - Ac 8:35-39 a. "both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water" b. "he baptized (immersed) him" c. "they came up out of the water" 3. And what of yourself? a. Was your baptism like that described in Ac 8:38-39a? b. If you were sprinkled or had water poured upon you... 1) You were keeping a tradition of man 2) You have not yet kept the commandment of God! 4. If you have not been baptized (immersed) as commanded by Jesus and His apostles... a. You are still in your sins! - Ac 2:38; 22:16 b. You have not yet put on Christ and become His disciple! - Ga 3:27; Mt 28:18-20 "BAPTISM" What About Infant Baptism? INTRODUCTION 1. In the previous studies we have seen that baptism... a. Is essential to: 1) SALVATION - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16 2) BECOMING DISCIPLES OF CHRIST - Mt 28:19-20; Ga 3:27 b. Is immersion, for: 1) Pouring and sprinkling do not fit with figures used to describe baptism in the N.T. 2) The Greek words can only mean immersion 3) Scholars are unanimous in pointing out that immersion was the practice in the Bible and early church 2. Two more questions remain which are often in the minds of people: a. Should infants be baptized? b. Is there ever a need to be "re-baptized?" [This study shall consider the question, "What About Infant Baptism?"] I. IS "INFANT BAPTISM" EVEN REALLY BAPTISM? A. TO BE BAPTISM, IT MUST BE IMMERSION 1. We have seen that pouring or sprinkling is not baptism 2. Therefore "infant baptism" as commonly practiced is really a misnomer a. "Infant pouring" or "infant sprinkling" would be more accurate b. Only if the infant is immersed could it be called "infant baptism" B. TO BE BAPTISM, IT MUST INVOLVE THOSE WHO MEET CERTAIN PRE- REQUISITES 1. Bible baptism requires FAITH - Ac 8:35-38 a. "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" b. "If you believe with all your heart, you may." c. If one believes, they may be baptized - Mk 16:16 d. But infants are incapable of belief! 2. Bible baptism requires REPENTANCE - Ac 2:38 a. If one is a penitent believer, they may be baptized b. But infants are also incapable of repentance! [The first thing to realize about "infant baptism" is that it is not baptism in the strict sense of the word; nor is it the baptism spoken of in the N.T., which was only for those who possessed faith and a penitent heart. Another question to consider concerning so-called "infant baptism"...] II. IS "INFANT BAPTISM" EVEN NECESSARY? A. THE RISE OF INFANT BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY 1. "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles." (MARTIN LUTHER, Vanity Of Infant Baptism, Part II, p. 8) 2. If this is true, when did the practice of "infant baptism" begin? a. The earliest mention of infant baptism is around 200 A.D. b. The practice began only after the doctrine of "original sin" had been developed 1) "The early theological development of the doctrine of original sin contributed to the importance of infant baptism." (Christianity Through The Centuries, p. 160) 2) The whole basis of "infant baptism" lies in the assump- tion that infants are born in sin B. ARE BABIES BORN IN SIN? 1. The doctrine of "original sin" means different things to different people a. Some understand it to refer only to inheriting the "fallen nature" of Adam, and not any personal guilt of his b. But the common conception includes the idea of inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin as well, meaning that babies are born in sin c. It is this latter understanding that led to the practice of infant baptism 2. Do babies inherit the personal guilt of their forbearers? a. God has clearly said that He does not hold the child guilty for the sins of the father - Ezek 18:20 b. Paul described a time in his life when we was alive before he became a sinner - Ro 7:7-11 1) According to the common idea of original sin, this would have been impossible! 2) But not if children are born free from the guilt of sin and remain such until they reach an age of account- ability 3. Consider the nature of the NEW COVENANT - He 8:6-13 a. One of the notable features about the new covenant is: 1) "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying 'Know the Lord'..." 2) "For all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." b. In other words, no one enters into this new covenant without already knowing the Lord c. Unlike the old covenant... 1) Where people entered the covenant by virtue of birth into the right family (Israel) 2) Where males entered the covenant by virtue of circum- cision when eight days old 3) Where as they grew older THEY HAD TO BE TAUGHT TO KNOW THE LORD d. When "infant baptism" is practiced, this distinctive feature of the new covenant is no longer present! 1) Children, who have supposedly entered a covenant rela- tionship with the Lord, still need to be taught as they get older 2) They have to be taught to know the Lord! e. This distinctive feature of the new covenant is true only when: 1) Baptism (the means by which we enter a covenant rela- tionship with the Lord today) is administered to peni- tent believers 2) Those who enter the covenant have already been taught about the Lord (via the gospel of Christ) CONCLUSION 1. Should infants be baptized? The answer is "yes" if we can show: a. One example in the N.T. where infants were baptized b. That they meet the prerequisites of faith and repentance required of all those baptized in the N.T. c. That they can know the Lord somehow before they enter into the relationship baptism places them, and so do not need to be taught to know the Lord 2. But the facts are: a. There is not one case of "infant baptism" in the N.T.! b. Only those who believe and have repented may be baptized! c. To baptize infants would make the point of He 8:11 without meaning! 3. The logical conclusion is that babies: a. Are born into this world without the guilt of their forbearers b. Are not lost and in need of salvation c. Are "safe" (not "saved," for they were never "lost") d. Remain safe until they reach an accountable age where they become guilty of their sins and in need of salvation 4. What if you were "baptized" as an infant? a. Most likely you were not (simply "sprinkled") b. Even if immersed, it was not "Bible baptism" which requires faith and repentance c. You are still in need of obeying the Word of the Lord! "BAPTISM" What About "Re-Baptism?" INTRODUCTION 1. So far we have seen that baptism is... a. Essential to: 1) Salvation - Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38; 22:16 2) Becoming disciples of Christ - Mt 28:19-20; Ga 3:27 b. Immersion, for: 1) Pouring and sprinkling do not fit the FIGURES used to describe baptism in the N.T. 2) The Greek words can only mean immersion 3) Scholars are unanimous in pointing out that immersion was the practice in the N.T. c. For those who are sinners, and have expressed faith in the Lord Jesus and are penitent for their sins (i.e., not infants) 2. One question remains which is often in the minds of people: "Is there ever a need to be re-baptized?" [This study examines that question, first by noticing...] I. A CASE OF "RE-BAPTISM" IN THE N.T. A. FOUND IN ACTS 19:1-5 1. Background information is found in Ac 18:24-28 a. Apollos had been teaching the baptism of John b. But he himself was taught more accurately by Aquila and Priscilla 2. Paul finds some "disciples" at Ephesus - Ac 19:1-3 3. Upon further examination he has them "re-baptized" - Ac 19: 4-5 B. SOME OBSERVATIONS... 1. They had been previously "baptized" 2. But their baptism was lacking in some way a. Even though it was immersion b. Even though it was "for the remission of sins" - Mk 1:4 c. Their baptism was not in the name of Jesus - Ac 2:38; 10:48; 19:5 1) That is, by His authority 2) Which would have been a baptism into the name of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son - Mt 28:19 3. Because their first "baptism" LACKED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, "re-baptism" was necessary! [May we not conclude that if an earlier "baptism" lacks some essential element, then "re-baptism" is necessary? To determine whether "re-baptism" is required of us, consider...] II. WHEN "RE-BAPTISM" IS APPROPRIATE A. THERE ARE FOUR "TENETS" OF BIBLE BAPTISM 1. The proper MODE - a burial (immersion) - Ro 6:3; Co 2:12 2. The proper AUTHORITY - in the name of Christ - Ac 19:5 3. The proper PURPOSE - remission of sins - Ac 2:38; 22:16 4. The proper SUBJECT - penitent believer - Ac 2:38; 8:37; Mk 16:16 B. WE HAVE SEEN THAT WHEN ONE OF THESE IS LACKING, "RE-BAPTISM" WAS COMMANDED 1. In Ac 19:1-5, the proper AUTHORITY was lacking 2. Even though their previous baptism had the right MODE, PURPOSE, and SUBJECT, "re-baptism" was commanded C. APPLYING WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED BOTH NOW AND FROM PREVIOUS LESSONS: 1. If we were baptized by SPRINKLING OR POURING... a. As practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and others b. Our baptism lacked the proper MODE (immersion) c. And "re-baptism" would be necessary 2. If we were baptized by THE AUTHORITY OF ANYONE OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST... a. Such as Ellen G. White (Seventh Day Adventists), The Watch Tower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), Joseph Smith (Mormons), and others b. Our baptism was not by the right AUTHORITY (Jesus Christ) c. And "re-baptism" would be necessary 3. If we were baptized AS A PUBLIC CONFESSION OF FAITH (thinking that we were already saved)... a. As practiced by most Baptists, Assemblies Of God, and others b. Our baptism was not for the right PURPOSE (remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) c. And "re-baptism" would be required to assure that we have indeed been scripturally baptized 4. Finally, if we were baptized BUT WERE NOT PENITENT BELIEVERS a. As is the case when people are baptized: 1) When all their friends are doing it 2) Because their spouse, fiance, or parents are pressuring them to do it (and they do it to please them, not God) b. Our baptism was lacking the right SUBJECTS (penitent believers) c. And our need for "re-baptism" is just as great as any other! CONCLUSION 1. In summarizing what has been said in this study: a. If our baptism lack any of the four tenets of Bible baptism 1) Right MODE - immersion 2) Right AUTHORITY- Jesus Christ 3) Right PURPOSE - remission of sins 4) Right SUBJECT - penitent believer b. Then "re-baptism" is both appropriate and necessary to assure that our sins have been washed away by the blood of Jesus! 2. But let me be sure to clarify: a. When one is baptized because their "first" baptism lacked an essential element... 1) It is not really "re-baptism!" 2) For in the strictest sense, that person is finally being baptized scripturally for the FIRST time! b. When one has been scripturally baptized ONCE... 1) There is never a need to be baptized again! 2) For once we have clothed ourselves with Christ in baptism: a) The blood of Christ continually cleanses us of our sins b) As long as we REPENT and CONFESS our sins to God in prayer - Ac 8:22; 1 Jn 1:9 Have you been scripturally baptized? If you desire assistance, please feel free to let me know! May God bless you in your efforts to do His Will! "BAPTISM" For Your Futher Study For a much more indepth study on the subject of "baptism," I recommend the following books: 1) BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1962, 442 pages) This is an excellent treatment of the subject from a scholarly point of view, by one of the foremost scholars among the Baptist denomination. He readily admits that his conclusions run counter to the views held by those in his own denomination. 2) HANDBOOK ON BAPTISM (Edited by J. W. Shepherd, Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville, Tennessee, 1972, 512 pages) This work, first published in 1894, is a compilation of quotes on the subject of baptism and related Scriptures by a broad assortment of historians, scholars, commentators, and theo- logians from virtually every major denomination. 3) BAPTISM AND THE REMISSION OF SINS (Edited by David W. Fletcher, College Press Publishing Co., Joplin, Missouri, 1990, 432 pages) This is a collection of articles surveying throughout church history the view that baptism is for the remission of sins. It also discusses controversies surrounding "re-baptism." These three books can be ordered from: Florida College Bookstore 1-800-922-2390 (bookstore) 119 Glen Arven Ave. Temple Terrace, FL 33617 +=====================================================================+ | Mark A. Copeland MCopeland (America Online) | | 341 Overstreet Ave. 76420,2006 (CompuServe) | | Longwood, FL 32750 MARKCOPELAND (Delphi) | | (407) 331-3417 markcopeland@delphi.com (Internet) | +=====================================================================+