Review
By way of summary, here are some important bullets to get out of the first three parts of the series:
- The early church continued to believe that following the Law was necessary. Jewish converts needed to recommit their lives to the Law (aka repent) in order to become Christians.
- Gentiles weren’t even considered candidates for Christianity. This is evident by all the miracles God had to do (Peter and Cornelius, Paul’s conversion, Paul’s visit to Jerusalem) in order to overcome this strong bias.
- This bias must be taken into account when interpreting Acts 1-15.
- Baptism can be a very emotionally charged subject. It’s best to take a breath and try to remove oneself from sentimental ramifications before diving in.
- The subject is not simple. If you think the answer is easy and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be ignorant, then you’re not in an open position.
- Baptism is an important matter because if the “believer’s baptism” is necessary for salvation, most people who sincerely believe they are saved are really not.
- Not many churches or denominations hold the stance that baptism is necessary (“baptizers”) but those that do are necessarily vocal about it and know their position well.
- Although some baptizers may wish baptism weren’t necessary, their convictions override any sentimental feelings.
- The origin of the baptism ritual predates Christianity and John’s baptism.
- It is important to know the purpose of its origin as the Christian baptism re-purposed it.
- Although historically it’s difficult to pin down precisely when formal baptism (immersion involving an official performing the baptism and witnesses) emerged, it can be narrowed down to the later years of the Hasmonean Dynasty, between 80 and 60 BC.
- Jews used the ritual form of water purification to publicly mark important stages in their lives and this is where the term “born again” emerged.
- This was the purpose of John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ disciples’ baptism—to repent and recommit one’s life back to the Law.
This is a lot to take in, which is why one of the points of Part 2 and a bullet above is that the topic of baptism is not simple. Either side can whip up a list of scriptures which support their stance. As it is the foundation of this website, are cultural aspects and other types of context taken into account?
Shouldn’t the Bible be clearer?
I’ve thought at different times, “Why wasn’t God clearer on how to be saved?” If the believer’s baptism is necessary, why can’t the Bible just spell it out clearly and succinctly? Some would say God did make it clear but people have muddied the waters. Others would say there are multiple paths and that God knows our hearts.
I read the Book of Mormon a long time ago. I didn’t (and still don’t) believe it is from God, and this was reinforced as I read it and felt it was written from a human perspective. I could see where the author thought, “This wasn’t clear enough in the Bible so I’m going to make it crystal clear here.” 3 Nephi 16:21-28 is one such passage and it is about the necessity of baptism and instructions on baptism. For example, “And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.” If you can get past the especially Old English, you’ll see how redundant and repetitious the verses are. It reminds me of the scene in Monte Python’s The Holy Grail about the Holy Hand-grenade of Antioch: “The count shall be 3 and 3 shall be the count. It shalt not be 2 unless thou immediately precedeth to 3. It shalt not be 4, and 5 is right out!”
This is how a human would write the Gospel if they wanted to be 100% sure that they communicated baptism is 100% necessary—and it would be ten times as long and utterly boring. Fortunately the New Testament is not written this way (even the Old Testament isn’t)! Therefore we’ll need to figure this out ourselves by what is written.
Issues with which Each Position must Contend
One way to evaluate each position is to examine the kinds of issues and corner-cases with which it must contend. The issues themselves do not rule out the position, but how the position contends with them can be revealing.
The Baptizer Position
1. Most of the world is lost
With the baptizer position, just about everyone you know and have known is lost. Indeed, most of the world has not experienced a believer’s baptism and is therefore not saved. The baptizer sees this as in line with what the Bible teaches and in harmony with how God has worked in the past. Israel was always small and often only remnants were actually true to God (2Kings 19:30-31), and Jesus says the road is narrow (Mat 7:13).
2. Some in the Bible received the Spirit before being water baptized
When did the Apostles get baptized in water to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps they received the Spirit when Jesus breathed on them in John 20:22 or when the tongues of fire landed on their heads in Acts 2. Either way, there’s no direct recording of them being immersed in water. More importantly, Acts 10 records that Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit before being baptized, and Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit well after their baptism in water after the Apostles Peter and John placed their hands on them. These are significant issues for baptizers to address. Are these special cases? Apologists dislike special cases. The more special cases there are, the weaker one’s argument.
A unique teaching of the Church of Christ is that there are at least two distinct classifications or manifestations of the Holy Spirit: the external miraculous form and the internal indwelling one. For the sake of communication, I’ll refer to it as the “dual-manifesting Spirit”. It would seem like such a doctrine would be much older, but as far as my historical searches have uncovered (including communications with teachers in the church), it was developed during the Restoration Movement in the early 1800s.
When the dual-manifestation doctrine is applied to Acts 10, Cornelius and his family would have received the external miraculous gifts first and then the internal indwelling gift afterwards when they were water baptized. In Acts 8, the Spirit indwelled in the Samaritans when they were baptized in water, and then they later received the miraculous gifts at the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. Acts 8:15-17 is of particular interest because both manifestations are intertwined in the same passage. It’s difficult to make sense of this passage without the dual-manifestation doctrine.
This doctrine is supported in the Bible, albeit through many indirect inferences. When one reads the OT after the fall of man through the Gospels, there is an uncanny consistency in verses containing the Holy Spirit where the wording is always “came on” or “fell upon”. In fact there are only two exceptions to the 60+ occurrences. The first is Exo 31:3, where God filled the artisans Oholiab and Bezalel with His Spirit so that they could follow His designs for the Tent Of Meeting. The second is Luke 1:15, where the Bible says about John the Baptist: “he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb”.
Therefore even though the dual-manifestation doctrine is rarely known outside of the Church of Christ (at least I had never heard of it until I came across that church’s beliefs), there is Biblical support for it and it does help to harmonize the Bible and clear up other issues. Two issues of importance are:
- After Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden, the indwelling of the Spirit was not available until after Jesus’ resurrection. Yet we see the Spirit coming on all kinds of people (and even one donkey) and allowing them to do miraculous things. How is this possible if the mankind’s sinful nature separated us from God? Clearly the Spirit did move in the OT and early NT, therefore there has to be a way for it to operate on humans but not from within humans.
- Acts 8:17-21 clearly states that the Spirit was given “at the laying on of the Apostles’ hands”. That can’t be the way the indwelling Spirit is disseminated, otherwise it would require apostles to lay hands on us now–but the Apostles died long ago. I know the Mormons continue to keep twelve appointed apostles, but I’m not aware of any other churches that teach apostles are still around to the present. In Acts 1:21-22, Peter gives the qualifications he used to select the apostle to replace Judas. No modern person qualifies since they would have had to be around Jesus while he was alive. I don’t think one could say this is the definitive set of qualifications for new apostles (it’s unlikely Paul qualified), but this combined with the fact that there are no scriptures saying the Apostolic Ministry should continue means there have been no apostles since the first century. Therefore it makes sense that God used the Apostles to disseminate the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but used a different method for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
All this to say that it makes sense for there to be two different manifestations of the Holy Spirit: a miraculous one that is passed by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands, and the indwelling of the Spirit received through baptism (if you’re in the baptizer camp) or faith alone (if you’re in the non-baptizer camp).
3. Long Conversions
Although all of the conversion stories in the NT are less than three days (most are immediate), persuading someone they’re lost and need water baptism can take time nowadays—weeks to months I’m told. The baptizer would say the Bible contains the “highlights” of conversion stories (i.e. the exciting and quick ones) and also that much false teaching must be untaught now.
4. No “Battlefield” or “Death Bed” Conversions
There’s simply no way to get someone very close to death to water and immerse them in their fragile state. And yet it is this very state which often opens people up to thinking about their life and the afterlife. The baptizer accepts this because God is sovereign and presumably these individuals had many opportunities in their past to follow God.
5. The Status of Children
This is really a problem for both camps but more so for the baptizer. Since the believer’s baptism requires an individual be old enough to have faith and understand their sin (and therefore have committed sins), baptisms of the immature and certainty infant baptisms are not considered valid. Typically until one is a young teen, they don’t possess the capability to receive the believer’s baptism.
So what is the spiritual “status” (i.e. the state of one’s salvation) of children? The Bible is incredibly silent when it comes to the spiritual status of children. Even the verses that are found are indirect:
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;
Mat 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
One would assume that a loving God would send all children to heaven due to their innocence, but to what age? Before I was a parent, I didn’t think much about this, but now as the father of two, I don’t like the idea of my kids potentially being lost as infants or having to be lost for some unknown period of time as a pre-teen or teen. Additionally, as being lost requires no faith and little maturity, children would become lost earlier than they can be saved (possibly years before). For the non-baptizer, less maturity is needed–plus there’s always the possibility that a prayer they said during church or at camp did the trick.
6. Christian Behavior from the Unbaptized
This is related to the first paragraph in this section where most of the world is lost. Many people can be easily discounted as lost: a lot of the world does not believe Jesus is the Messiah and of those who do, most do not act like it. However, there still remain many who are great representatives of Christ and seem to be Spirit-filled yet have not experienced the believer’s baptism. Think about missionaries and martyrs, church leaders of vibrant congregations, and music professionals whose lyrics and music inspire both baptizers and non-baptizers alike. The baptizer would likely say that outward appearances are not representative of what’s going on inwardly (Mark 7), and that there can be good people (from a human perspective) who aren’t true Christians. Some moderate baptizers might go so far as to say that it is possible for people to be saved without baptism, but that the best interpretation of the Bible indicates that one must be and therefore they’re going with that.
7. Partial Immersions
Since non-baptizers don’t believe baptism is necessary, when they do perform immersion baptisms, it’s for symbolic purposes. Therefore small mishaps are no big deal. For baptizers, things like a nose or finger or toe sticking out of the water is a big deal. Baptizers wouldn’t want someone left out of Heaven on a “technicality” so the person must be baptized again. If you’ve ever witnessed a baptism where several people surround the baptismal and wonder what they’re all doing, besides the dunker, the others are there to keep various appendages from popping up out of the water so this awkward situation can be avoided. But what if someone didn’t notice? Would God really reject them? Baptizers must contend with this as it could expose weaknesses in their doctrine.
8. The Problem of Restorations
Baptizers also tend to reject the “once saved always saved” doctrine. You can read my article Can Christians Lose their salvation?, but there are scriptures which seem to suggest that once someone walks away from God they cannot come back (I argue against this). Yet there are people who leave their church for various reasons and later want to return. Can they return? If so should they be baptized again or just start showing up? There are verses like Gal 6:1 about restoring your brother gently, but these don’t give a procedure which would resolve this conundrum.
Therefore the baptizer must contend with whether a returning person should be baptized again or not. Often the issue is whether the person actually was a Christian (i.e. whether they’re first baptism was valid or not). How does one answer such an important question? They can get advice from those helping to restore them, but ultimately the individual themself must decide. This is a bit of a weakness in the baptizer’s position, for they like things to come straight out of the black and white pages of the Bible. One’s own feelings are not to be trusted as Satan and their own biases cloud their judgement. Here though there no choice. Since the baptizer’s position relies in part on human actions (the one being baptized and those baptizing them), this introduces the possibility of human error. At some point the baptizer must say, “God knows my heart”–the very thing they don’t want say because they want to rely instead on their strict adherence and obedience to the Scriptures. This problem is common to the above point, this point, and the following point.
9. Retrospectively Questioning One’s Faith
For the believer’s baptism, the faith one has at their immersion is paramount. Years after one is baptized, they or someone in their life may look back and question their faith at baptism. Perhaps they didn’t believe something fully or had hidden sin. The conundrum is that in order to be meaningfully baptized, they must be fully convinced that their original baptism was false. There’s no such thing as getting re-baptized “just to make sure”, as this uncertainty itself casts doubt on the baptism and negates it. As mentioned at the end of the above point, this highlights that even though a physical action is taken (the baptism), it is still faith that makes it legitimate and real. And it is the physical, human aspects of water baptism that expose the doctrine to issues.
10. Baptism is a Work
I personally do not believe this is a good argument, but I’m including it because many do. In my opinion it’s an over-simplified argument non-baptizers make using scriptures like Eph 2:8-9 which says that we are saved by faith and not through works.
One very simple idea is that, since baptism involves action and motion, it is a work and therefore cannot save you. This however is an incorrect interpretation of what the Bible means by “works”. Works here means meriting salvation through one’s obedience to Mosaic Law. It doesn’t mean that salvation cannot involve expending energy.
A second approach is that a baptizer is obeying “the law of baptism” to merit salvation, but this too is weak. First of all, works means obedience to all of God’s Law, and secondly, the act of baptism does not earn one’s salvation. It is not as if all your “hard work” having someone else dunk you in water somehow makes up for all of your sin and that God is now obliged to save your soul—it is the death and resurrection of Christ that makes our salvation possible.
Two analogies I’ve heard baptizers use are marriage and winning the lottery. With marriage, signing the marriage license is what makes a marriage legal, but neither the bride nor the groom would think that they now earned the love of their partner by signing the license. The same goes for a lottery winner. Can you imagine if a lottery winner rejected the winnings because they refused to sign a form? “You didn’t say I’d have to sign any forms and tire my hand! Keep the 100 million dollars!” This is why baptism isn’t a meritorious work.
11. The Thief on the Cross
This is another over-simplified argument used by non-baptizers since Jesus told one of the men crucified with him that “today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43) and clearly he wasn’t baptized. There are two issues: one, Jesus had not yet died and raised so the New Covenant had not yet started, and two, Jesus uses the word paradise not heaven, and paradise referred to the good side of the pre-New Covenant afterlife of the Jews (see Luke 16:19-31).
The non-Baptizer Position
1. No Memorable Date for One’s Conversion
Getting fully immersed in front of a bunch of people is, if nothing else, memorable. Many non-baptizers either have multiple dates, a range of dates, or no idea at all when they became a Christian. While it’s true that the Bible doesn’t say one must know the date they became saved, not knowing one’s date is symptomatic of deeper issues. One is that it shows they may not have understood the importance and seriousness of their conversion. In a way baptism is like being born or like getting married–who forgets these dates? The second issue is it breeds doubt in whether one is saved or not, which is what leads to subsequent attempts to make sure of one’s conversion.
2. NT Verses Explicitly Include Water Baptism
Acts 8:36, Acts 10:47 and 1 Pet 3:19-21 all clearly show the convert was baptized in water. Acts 8 is about Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. The contents of Philip’s talk are abridged, but clearly Philip mentioned water baptism during his discussion because the Eunuch famously exclaims, “Here is some water…why shouldn’t I be baptized?” In Acts 10, Peter says to Cornelius and his family, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water.”
In 1 Pet 3, Peter actually says “this baptism now saves you” and “it saves you by the resurrection of Christ Jesus” (emphasis added). In the next verse Peter makes it clear he’s talking about water baptism: “not the removal of dirt from the body but a pledge of a clear conscience”. Some confuse what the symbol is mentioned in verses 20 and 21. They say that baptism is the symbol and therefore it is purely symbolic, but this is incorrect from the text itself (i.e. not up for interpretation). The symbol is the waters of the flood, which cleansed the earth leaving just eight people who were saved on the ark. Completing the metaphor, the ark is symbolic of Jesus’ resurrection. Peter uses the Greek word σῴζω (so-dzo) which means to save or rescue; therefore he is saying that baptism in water literally rescues us because of Jesus’ resurrection. This to me is one of the strongest verses in support of the baptizer position. Peter is clearly saying water baptism saves us through the resurrection of Christ, so what is the non-baptizer’s response to this?
Besides swapping the symbols (saying the baptism symbolizes the waters of the flood), a few things can be said. First of all, it should be noted that the phrase, “it saves you” (the second occurrence of saves) is not in the Greek. All translations besides the NIV simply say, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. Therefore the phrase “saves you” only appears once in the text (but all translations agree with this). Secondly, the interpretation of the word behind “pledge” is not straightforward. The Greek word here is ἐπερώτημα (eh-per-oh-tay-ma) is translated five different ways in eight major translations: interrogation (ASV), appeal (NASB), pledge (NIV, HCSB), answer (KJV, NKJV), and response (NLT). Strong’s says “pledge, request or appeal”. With the exception of the ASV’s “interrogation” (I have no idea how they came up with that!), the other words all are responses of one’s conscience towards God.
All this investigation into the translation of this verse doesn’t change the idea that baptism is a response of one’s conscience that saves us because of the resurrection of Jesus.
The most common non-baptizer rebuttals I’ve heard say that when this passage is taken in harmony with clearer passages like Rom 10:9 and Eph 2:8-9, it can be known that Peter does not mean that baptism saves you but that one’s pledge saves them. This is presumptuous, however, as it assumes 1 Pet isn’t a clear passage and that it is superfluous, not adding to the overall interpretation of the subject.
Titus 3:5 is another verse to consider. It doesn’t explicitly use the word baptism but instead uses the phrase “washing of rebirth” which seems like a pretty clear reference to baptism. The baptizer would say Paul was even trying to use words without the Jewish stigma baptism had. Note that the Greek word σῴζω (so-dzo) for “saves us” is used again.
3. Many “Unqualified” Uses of Baptism
By unqualified, I mean no other words explicitly qualify the type of baptism. From a scriptural point of view, non-baptizers must admit there are many salvation-related passages that include baptism and few that don’t. One argument is that the unqualified use of baptism means “spiritual immersion in the Holy Spirit”.
Two interesting unqualified uses of baptism are in Mark 10 verses 38 and 39. Here, through context, we can tell Jesus is referring to his death on the cross as a sort of baptism—in essence, can James and John make it through being immersed in the persecution and torture that is crucifixion. This shows that baptism can be used metaphorically–not only to immersion in water.
But how can we know the type of unqualified uses of baptism where there is no contextual help? It is clear from the definition and historical uses of the Greek word βαπτίζω (bap-ti-zoe) that the “default” unqualified use refers to immersion in water. In other words, if an author wanted to use baptism metaphorically, he would have to qualify it to avoid confusion.
Perhaps the most convincing unqualified use is in The Great Commission in Matt 28:16-20. Here, in what is Jesus’ parting charge to the eleven Apostles, he says “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. I argued that the Apostles were still learning the Gospel in the first half of Acts and could have been applying the Jewish form of baptism, but this is Jesus himself speaking. Non-baptizers must contend with this seriously. Why would Jesus use the word baptize and not qualify the type unless he meant to refer to water baptism? And why would Jesus explicitly tell the Apostles to baptize new disciples if it wasn’t necessary?
At a minimum, these qualified and unqualified salvation passages involving baptism show that baptism in water was considered a way of being saved in the early church. It would be contentious for non-baptizers to argue against this, but I believe their best strategy is to say that water baptism is one way but not the only way to receive the indwelling Spirit. The following two items explore this idea.
4. Baptism Refers to Spiritual Immersion
What if the core purpose of baptism were about spiritual immersion? A good case for this idea comes from John the Baptist in Luke 3:16. Here John says that while he baptized with water, the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. Therefore the Messiah’s baptism will be with something other than water (baptizers would say “in addition to”).
In Acts 2:3 we see actual tongues of fire come to rest on the Apostles’ heads and then in verse 4 we read that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. This is a pretty accurate fulfillment of John the Baptist’s prophecy, but this would mean the “fire” part was literal and one-time. This because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was for more than the Apostles (see verse 42) but there are no other recordings of literal fire associated with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Of course the “fire” part could also metaphorically refer to the power of the Holy Spirit, and that would continue into the future as well.
The point is John the Baptist’s prophecy does not mention water baptism but instead introduces a new type of baptism that is spiritual and far superior to his baptism for repentance. This could be interpreted to mean the Messiah’s baptism does not involve immersion in water but in the Spirit instead. The baptizer would say that the Messiah’s baptism added to John’s such that the water component is still there and required, but a new spiritual component was added.
A proponent of this idea would say that Jesus in Mat 28 is also referring to spiritual baptism; after all, his disciples were always confusing the physical with the spiritual. They would further say that the water baptisms in Acts were due to the immaturity of the early disciples, continuing John’s baptism of repentance which recommitted them to the Law Of Moses. As for later references to baptism in Paul and Peter’s epistles, they’d have to use one of the afore mentioned methods to get around them or find a new one. Note that using “immaturity of the church” as a method for the epistles is not a good strategy since they were written decades after Acts 2.
5. Water Baptism is Simply a Way to Express One’s Faith
Another strategy of the non-baptizer is to search to find passages that deal with conversion that don’t involve baptism. Baptizers would say this is illogical because verses on salvation must be taken in union as a whole. However if one’s methodology in interpreting the Bible is less rigid and seeks to not “put God in a box”, then topics need only appear once to set a precedence.
This methodology also ranks passages about a topic in order of understandability. In other words, passages that are easier to comprehend and interpret are weighed more highly than those that aren’t. This is logical, however it can be very subjective. For instance, one would be remiss to rely heavily on the cryptic and highly symbolic verses of Revelation to be a primary source of doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are an example of a church which has done just that–and it has led them way off course to very peculiar doctrine (in my opinion). In 2 Pet 3:15-16, Peter remarks that some people think that Paul’s writings were more difficult to understand and that some corrupt individuals used it distort his message.
Therefore one could say this practice was going on even in the first century. It is still a subjective practice and susceptible to error. Would we say Eph 2:8-9 is easier to understand than 1 Pet 3:21? This article does, and it completely determined how the author interpreted 1 Pet.
The verses John 3:16, Rom 10:9, and Eph 2:8-9 can often be found on cards folks leave on tables to share the Gospel. They are considered straightforward and easy to interpret. None mention baptism.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Eph 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Belief and faith are the keywords. Baptizers simply say that if one has sincere faith they will seek to obey all of the other scriptures on salvation which do include baptism. They’d also say that not every verse about salvation need mention all the components, lest the Bible sound like 3 Nephi. For instance, a baptizer would say Paul just established baptism as necessary in Rom 6, why would he repeat the full process again just four chapters later?
As mentioned before, baptizers say that you have to take the Bible as whole. Therefore the Bible need only mention once that water baptism is necessary. In other words, various salvation verses must be put together with the conjunction “and” and not “or”. Even if the various salvation verses are not connected with the conjunction “and”, non-baptizers have to acknowledge that water baptism is associated with salvation in several passages, and if they have any chance convincing baptizers, they must have an explanation as for why. There are several that come to mind:
- Baptism is one way to be saved.
- Baptism is commanded, but we’re forgiven for breaking it and we should seek to get baptized after conversion.
- Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. One’s baptism occurs after they are saved and is a testimony to the church community.
- Baptism was an unnecessary extension of the Jewish use of purification and a way of recommitting the the Law.
The gist of verses like the three above is that salvation comes through the faith of the individual. Non-baptizers would say this is why water baptism is not required. Once a person attains the necessary faith, God rewards them immediately with the indwelling Holy Spirit. They need not say any special words or perform any special rituals, however special words and rituals which aid in expressing one’s faith are useful. This is why non-baptizers should agree that baptism is a way to salvation.
Some say Rev 3:20 is another salvation verse that excludes baptism, but I think this is a weak argument. This verse simply does not pertain to salvation but to the repentance of the church.
6. Use of Human Reasoning
One underlying reason non-baptizers don’t think baptism is necessary is it just doesn’t feel like something the God of the NT would do. God just wouldn’t require people to jump through the hoop of water baptism. This is also something which can create a seed of doubt in baptizers. From a purely human perspective, it doesn’t make sense that a God of love would condemn individuals faithful to His Son who, for whatever reason, were not baptized.
However, thinking for or on behalf of God is fraught with danger. Consider Isa 55:8-9 about God’s thoughts being way higher than ours, and 1Cor 1:18-19, about God frustrating the wisdom of the wise through the foolishness of the cross. And who can fathom how to operate with perfect mercy and perfect justice simultaneously?
If possible, try to remember back to when you first read or heard the Gospel stories of Jesus—were you ever able to predict what Jesus was going to do or say next? “What would Jesus do?” is a credulous motto to live by, because in practice no one knows what Jesus would do! Especially when it comes to church doctrine, one should not try to think for God.
What about God speaking to us spiritually? I would never say God does not do this, and there are definitely times I feel God speaking to me. Yet God’s voice in our minds would never betray His written words. Even if I felt God cleared up some mystery for me, it would be for me alone and would still need to be in harmony with the Bible.
Therefore our only source for information about the Gospel is the Bible, and we must do our best to interpret its meaning.
Summary statements:
- Having God’s Spirit restored into our bodies is what saves us. See Rom 8:9; 1Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2Cor 1:21-22.
- Therefore it is our immersion in the indwelling Holy Spirit that is the ultimate goal of whatever process used by baptizers and non-baptizers.
- The non-baptizer should concede that water baptism is one way of expressing one’s faith and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit, while the baptizer declares that it is the only Scriptural means.
- There are many verses which associate baptism with salvation, and no verses which directly exclude baptism from salvation. This strengthens the baptizer’s case, but there is still a case for non-baptizers if they can account for these verses and explain how the indwelling Holy Spirit is restored in us.
In the next and final installment of this series, I’ll wrap things up and talk about how one’s interpretation method of the Bible (even if they are unaware they have one) greatly affects where one lands in baptizer/non-baptizer camp. Also to be covered in detail is Jesus and Nicodemus’ conversation in John 3.