• Home
• Salvation
• Bible Versions
• Doctrines
• Endtime
• Other Issues
• Book Reviews

 

 

Baptism and Salvation

 

1.  As sometimes occurs in court cases, a great deal of evidence can appear to be set against a defendant, and then something can be said or a key piece of evidence can be presented that completely re-configures one's perspective, to the extent that the opposite conclusion becomes obvious and firmly believed.  Surprisingly, the existing evidence then clearly supports the opposite conclusion, as if it had done so from the beginning.

 

2.  That change in perspective can happen in one's understanding of Bible doctrines, including that pertaining to various teachings, methods and purposes of "baptism" (Pentecostal and Baptist interpretations of it alike).  Typically, whenever "baptism" is mentioned by itself, "water baptism" is assumed.  But, I ask the reader to consider that: 

a. there are many places where the word baptism clearly is not referring to 'water' baptism, therefore we shouldn't assume it means 'water' baptism unless the context clearly implies water baptism.  Otherwise, we will be reading into the text something that isn't there, a practice that will inevitably lead to wrong conclusions.

 

b. Besides I Cor 1:17, Matt 3:11 is another verse with a "but" in it that is easily overlooked.  John the Baptist did baptize with water, as he said, BUT Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with fire.  This "but" tells us that a change would occur when Jesus comes; and specifically that water baptism as a practice would no longer have the same importance.

 

c. Therefore, is it possible that water baptism was only a picture/type/shadow of the real baptism that was yet to come?  As mentioned in a previous article on baptism, physical circumcision was a picture of the spiritual reality that was yet to come – circumcision of the heart.  So, likewise, couldn't water baptism be just a physical picture of the spiritual reality that was yet to come – baptism with the Holy Ghost and baptism with fire?  If so, just as physical circumcision, sacrifices and other old testament practices became unnecessary (and even wrong to do in some cases – because of legalistic Jewish traditions), wouldn't it be scripturally sound that the practice of water baptism would become unnecessary (and perhaps even wrong – because of clinging to it as legalistic tradition) after the purpose for its practice was fulfilled and the transition into the spiritual reality (Holy Ghost) was complete?

 

d. Many of the 91 verses that mention baptism refer to something other than water baptism.  Most of these use the word to refer to the concept of immersion into something – Holy Ghost, fire, death, suffering, repentance, body, Christ, etc, and more importantly, in the "name".  In fact, some verses diminish the importance of water baptism, pointing instead towards the forthcoming spiritual reality and not back to the physical practice that had served only as a picture (as emphasized by the word "but" in Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:26, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16)

 

e. the book of Acts is a transitional book – from the old covenant to the new covenant, from law to grace, from Israel to the church, from the gospel for Jews to Gentiles, from physical sacrifices and practices to spiritual sacrifices and practices, etc.  Therefore, it should not be considered strange that this book mentions a variety of baptisms, at various stages, for various peoples, in various forms.

 

f. By the time we get to Eph 4:5 we learn that there is only one Lord, one faith and ONE baptism for the church.  Wouldn't this be the spiritual baptism of being immersed, incorporated, made-one-with, the body of Christ by being baptized in and with the Holy Ghost as required by I Cor 12:13?  How could two baptisms – physical water baptism and a 'baptism with the Holy Ghost' (tongues), as Oneness Pentecostals believe – satisfy this clear decree that there is only ONE baptism for the church?

 

g. As I understand the doctrine, Oneness Pentecostals consider baptism "in the name of" to be a reference to certain words - a spoken formula - that must be pronounced as the physical ritual of water immersion is conducted.  But, when Jesus commanded that disciples be made of all nations by baptizing them "in the name" of…., and in other passages where people are baptized "in the name" of the Lord, isn't it possible that he really meant exactly what he said instead?  I mean, baptism is immersion.  Isn't it possible that Jesus was saying that, to make disciples of all nations, we must immerse them or baptize them in his "name"; not in water?  Among other verses, Rev 19:13 says that his "name" is the word of God.  Doesn't it make sense then that by immersing people (baptizing them) in the word of God – the words by which man shall live – one becomes a disciple, and ultimately becomes saved?  Doesn't John 8:31-32, among many other passages, confirm this by saying that "if ye continue in my word, (immersed in his word/"name") then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free"?

 

h. Animal sacrifices and physical circumcision were mentioned many times in the Old Testament.  Were they important?  Yes.  Did they continue to be important in the new covenant?  No.  Likewise, water baptism was important - to present the picture of immersion - but it was not mentioned by the New Testament writers as often as one might think, and it is not mentioned as positively (let alone as emphatically or as being essential) as the UPC doctrine would require it to be.  In fact, all of the biblical teachers attached caution to their mention of the practice of water baptism and/or they diminished its importance in deference to a greater spiritual reality that was yet to come; for example: 

1) John the Baptist only baptized in water to make Jesus manifest to Israel and, as mentioned, he contrasted this practice with the fact that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with fire instead,

 

2) Jesus never commanded us to baptize people in water.  But he did explain how we were to baptize.  He commanded us to "teach" all nations, which he defined as "baptizing" them (i.e. immersing them) in his "name" (Matt 28:19), as the means by which to make them disciples.  This is consistent with John 8:31-32.

 

3)  Jesus also said that we were to be baptized with the Holy Ghost; not with water. (Acts 1:5)

 

4) Paul acknowledged having baptized a few people in water, (almost apologetically), but never once endorses or even mentions water baptism as a positive, scriptural practice; let alone as a mandatory requirement for salvation.  He uses the word 'baptism' as a spiritual reality - and does not promote physical water immersion at all.

 

5) Peter acknowledged having baptized some in water, but in the bible's final reference to baptism, he closed the scriptural door on the issue of water baptism by saying that he wasn't referring to the physical practice of water baptism, but to the spiritual reality of having the answer of a good conscience towards God.

 

3.  If we read the text as written - without adding to God's word and inserting the word "water" before the word "baptism" (Prov 30:6) - then the following verses have a completely different meaning: 

1) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.  (In light of the transition from the picture of water baptism to the spiritual reality of baptism in/with the Holy Ghost – I Cor 12:13 and others – one must satisfy two criteria to be saved, as follows: BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and RECEIVE the Holy Ghost since/after believing – Acts 19:2-6 – therefore spirit baptism is essential; water baptism is not)

 

2) Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins".  (Water is neither mentioned nor implied in this verse.  Moreover, the context of this entire passage and chapter - Acts chapter 2 - is baptism in/with the Holy Ghost.  The substance of the immersion is the "NAME" of Jesus, his word, his spirit, the Holy Ghost - not with water BUT with the Holy Ghost - not many days hence - Acts 1:5).

 

4. There is even reason to believe that the baptism "with the Holy Ghost" is yet a future event - our salvation being secured at his Second Coming, the day of redemption.  This perspective also fits the prophecy of Jesus in Acts 1:5 within the prophetic timeframe of scripture - wherein a thousand years is as one day (II Peter 3:8) and all believers shall be redeemed and baptized with the Holy Ghost on that third day. "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." (Hosea 6:2)

 

5. I am not necessarily teaching that the baptism with the Holy Ghost is yet a future event, but it does seem to fit these scriptures.  It also fits the scriptures that, for now, we are only sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise until that future day when the full reality of our salvation will occur (Rom 8:23; Luke 21:28; Eph 1:13; 4:30).

 

6. Finally, this understanding puts to rest the whole debate of "Eternal Security", because we shall all be eternally secure (the phrase is not in the bible) subsequent to our full salvation, but our salvation is not complete until that future day of redemption (Rom 8:23; Luke 21:28; Eph 1:13; 4:30).

 

7. It is true that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16), because believing without being baptized does not complete the gospel.  That is because one must RECEIVE the Holy Ghost after believing (i.e. be "baptized with/in/by the Holy Ghost – I Cor 12:13; Acts 19:2), to complete the gospel.

 

8. The bible seems to teach that Baptism with the Holy Ghost is essential to salvation; but that water baptism is not.  This is suggested by Acts 10:44-48 wherein the Holy Ghost fell on all who heard the word (including Cornelius and his friends) before they were water baptized - which is contrary to the formula taught by UPCI/Oneness adherents by way of their interpretation of Acts 2:38.

 

9. The Holy Spirit does not reside in unbelievers; and anyone who is in the Spirit is no longer in the flesh (Rom 8:9; I Cor 12:13, and I Pet 3:21, among others).

 

10.  If Oneness doctrine is true then many are headed to Hell - including me - irrespective of faith in God's word.  That is a troubling thought.  (Conversely, and also troubling, if Oneness doctrine is wrong then many people for whom I care may be headed to Hell for believing 'another gospel, another Jesus and/or another spirit'.)  So, I believe that these issues are important and that doctrine does matter.  As distinctive destinations, Heaven and Hell stand as compelling reasons for us to study and to rightly divide the word of truth.

 

11.  So if we understand "baptism" to be our spiritual immersion (into the name, body and word of Christ by and with the Holy Ghost) as the bible so often states, and if we don't arbitrarily add the word "water" to confuse the issue, then the gospel is fulfilled when we repent from our sins – whereby we had transgressed God's law – and accept the remedy for our sinful state: BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.

 

12. It would then be grace through faith that saves us, rather than grace through faith plus our own works (water baptism) that saves us.  This way, (which is consistent with Eph 2:8,9), WORKS would certainly follow the saving faith, but would have no part in accomplishing our salvation.

 

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good, (I Thess 5:21)