In this CD, Mr. Bercot takes a clarifying look at what Scripture has to say about water baptism. I should add that when he sees doctrinal controversy between denominations (such as on this topic), he resolves it by looking at Scripture, and what the early church (pre-325 AD) believed about it. Their beliefs were more likely backed by Scripture, since that church was closer to the apostles--and they were a church that the Lord made powerful--so it’s likely He didn't see any deviant doctrine there.
The early church believed, from Scripture, that in baptism, the following things happened: (1) all of a person’s prior sins are washed away; (2) a person is born again through baptism of water and the Holy Spirit; 3) through baptism, a person becomes a member of Christ’s church Because of the importance of these, we must conclude that they believed that the salvation process is not complete without baptism.
What does Scripture say? Let’s start with John 3:5:
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Does this not say, clearly, that “born of water” is water baptism? Even in the Greek, the word translated "water" simply is physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?—and that without it, you cannot enter the kingdom of God?
Mark 16:16 says:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
This clearly requires baptism to "be saved," or to be in heaven and escape Judgment.
Acts 2:36-38:
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
In verses 37-38, Peter has the ultimate evangelistic opportunity. Does he say what all of us evangelical Protestants have been taught, to pray to let Jesus into their heart? No; after they’ve been shown who Jesus is in earlier verses, what they need to do to be saved…is…(1)repentance and (2) baptism. (He emphasizes the importance of baptism, saying “every one of you” needs to do it). These additional two steps will give them remission of sins.
Acts 22:16 was when Saul was saved, becoming Paul, and was told:
…And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’
Baptism washes away our sins. That’s very important, is it not? Without it, with the guilt of sins on us, how can you get to heaven? (Allowance is made elsewhere for those who cannot be baptized.) Note the urgent tones that they should be baptized right away.
The early church fathers felt that baptism is important enough that they still insisted that a man who was saved, immediately imprisoned, then martyred had a baptism—a baptism of blood.
Galatians 3:27:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
“Baptized into Christ” is clearly water baptism, as Romans 6:2-4 points out:
How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
As you can see, in immersion water baptism you are experiencing a type of the death and resurrection of our Lord.
And what of the phrase “put on Christ?” When you read Romans 13:14, it means wrapping yourself in godly thoughts and not thinking about sinful ones. But it’s also “clothe yourself with Christ,” associated with Genesis 3 when God clothed Adam with skins of an animal being sacrificed after he sinned. That blood being shed to provide the skin was the beginning of God’s plan for His Son, the Lamb, whose blood was shed once for all. The animal sacrifice meant protection from the dire effects of sin. Baptism—and faith in what Christ did--are the means to these desirable and necessary goals in the New Covenant. So necessary that without them, we’re not saved.
Titus 3:5: …but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit
The washing speaks of baptism. Baptism results in regeneration, becoming a new creation. And, as Jesus put it (John 3:3), that’s essential go to heaven. And it clearly says, “He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (through the baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”
Hebrews 10:22:
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
“Pure water” is baptism. Baptism helps gives us a full assurance of faith and enables us to draw near to Him.
I Peter 3:21 uses the term “antitype.” That’s a New Testament fulfillment from an Old Testament prefigure (called a type):
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This bluntly points out that baptism, and Christ’s resurrection, save us. Of course, in context, and thinking of my “Paul v James” blogs, to be saved at the end, you need baptism combined with true faith, repentance, and obedience. Baptism gives you a “good conscience toward God.” The Old Testament prefigure here is Noah (see I Peter 3:20), whose ark in the water protected against the judgment and saved eight souls.
There is something I need to point out that is in Mr. Bercot's notes later, but it’s worthwhile mentioning here: EVERY ONE OF THESE VERSES IS DIRECTED TO AN ADULT WHO IS MAKING A CHOICE TO BE BAPTIZED. There are no baptisms of babies in Scripture that we know of.
There are other "types" in the Old Testament. Consider I Corinthians 10:1-2's comments on the Jews passing through the Red Sea:
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
Was crossing the water of the Red Sea (a type of baptism) merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, crossing the water DID save them! Then why do most evangelistic churches use the weak word “symbol” when they explain baptism? Using the Red Sea type, baptism completes our salvation. I use the word “complete” because other things of faith were involved too, all of which together ensured their salvation. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses. In faith they believed the ten plagues were a message from God. In faith they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, when they obeyed the instruction to put lamb’s blood on the doorposts. And when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—that was a great step of faith, since a sensible man would never expect to stay alive--the desert couldn’t possibly support three million people. All of these things, faith plus obedience, ensured their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the Red Sea completed the job—but all this was still only at the beginning of their journey. They still had to place faith in God throughout the journey.
Another Old Testament figure of baptism—mentioned several times by early Christians—was Naaman, the leper. In II Kings 5, Naaman was purified of leprosy when he was baptized in the Jordan. This was a symbol of what baptism can do for us regarding the leprosy of sin. We are cleansed through it.
If you’re thinking, “surely there was some group who didn’t hold to this view of baptism, who thought it was just symbolic,” you’re right—the Gnostics felt that way. Of course, you also need to know what else they believed--that the creation of the earth and mankind was done by an inferior god, a second god, so his creation was flawed and beyond redemption, so they concluded the flesh cannot be saved. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body—you can’t get a perfect result from an imperfect body. Jesus couldn’t have come in the flesh, since He wasn’t imperfect, as all flesh is. Thus, there was no God Incarnate. No one can be “reborn” through physical substances (since all such are evil)—like water. So baptism has no power to save, it’s just a symbol of what’s happened in the spirit.
Are these corrupt, or what?
Isn’t it terrible that so many of us Protestants agree with them about baptism, that it's just a "symbol?" So our historical support is this deviant bunch. If you agree with the Gnostics, you're also saying all the church fathers, as holy a group as you ever want to meet in heaven, men who were taught by the apostles, were dead wrong. Which group do you want to follow—the Gnostics or the church fathers? Here again, though, let’s get back to Scripture: Can we argue against all the above Scriptural passages? Not without doing twisty reasoning, instead of simple, literal reasoning.
How did the church move away from this doctrine, if it’s correct? Why either baptize babies or, the opposite, say that's it's unimportant except as a "symbol?" I think partly because the church reacted to people’s desire for convenience—people wanted to feel assurance of salvation, wanted a simple “formula.” So eventually they got it—they came up with: do the sacraments, or ordinances, and you shall be saved. Infant baptism came about because of the high infant mortality rates; people wanted assurance that their baby was saved when he died. Also, when an entire nation was defeated by a “Christian” nation, it was required that the entire nation’s children would be baptized. None of these changes were Scripturally based--they are mechanical devices, not a choice being made. This “mechanical” religion requires no relationship with Christ and no day-to-day holiness, as Scripture demands (see the “Paul vs James” blogs). Expanding “the kingdom of God,” as they called it, by sword, by expansion, by alliances with pagans, came naturally to them as well. Scripture explaining the truth of baptism became hidden, in an impossible language (Latin, which most people of that day couldn't understand), so darkness reigned.
When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people saved as possible. They saw the idea of requiring baptism a second time, as an adult instead of a baby, as confusing. Confusion would slow the number of people’s spiritual awakening down, mixing a difficult intellectual topic with their wonderful emotion. Was a second, and real, baptism important enough to trump that? They decided No.
Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done. These Scriptural benefits of baptism were not “automatic” at baptism, as I’ve stressed several times in this paper. A saving relationship with Christ, following His commands (and baptism was one of them) are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just “outward” baptism. When you want to submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are dunked in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. If you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing? You’re still spiritually dead—you’ll just look nicer in hell.
Acknowledgements: Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"
No comments:
Post a Comment