The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today? [New]

Hi everyone,

I’ve started a new thread on this subject as a “fresh start” from the old one, which was, to say the least, very saddening. I’ve attached a document containing my thoughts on the subject of “should we still baptise with water today?”
I would just like to preface my response by adding a few comments...

1) “Whenever someone teaches a doctrine that is contrary to popular opinion, most people automatically reject it without thinking it through. This is especially true in the matter of water baptism.” [Kramer] Please endeavour to be like the Bereans.

2) I’m sharing this because I want input. God help me to have a teachable spirit, and may this document come to naught if it is not of Him. I’m fully aware of the great tendency to resist water baptism because I have never been baptised. I’m also aware that the paper contradicts 2000 years of Church history... so I post this with trembling...

3) I’ve come a long way in my understanding of Acts the past 2 weeks. Thanks everyone for your input so far. I see that almost all references to baptism in Acts are referring to water, and indeed, that the apostles were performing the act symbolically.

4) By Holy Spirit Baptism I do NOT mean a second blessing.

5) I am NOT an advocate of [water] baptismal regeneration, nor the necessity of [water] baptism to be saved. Not so with spiritual baptism

6) I am an advocate of salvation by faith ALONE.

7) Please bear with me. It is hard reading, I know! Some of the objections and answer should have been placed in the main body of each section, but I will get to that in due time... The document is actually half a refutation, and half new thoughts.

8) Sorry I couldn't post a pdf... the size exceeded the limit

See this article ARTICLE, written by Dr. Robert D. Luginbill. He makes some very pertinent points which I have not raised in the paper, which you would do well to read before replying. Read with care, though, because the article he refers to, “Peter #27, "Three Doctrines which Threaten Faith” is erroneous.

Happy reading!

I wait with bated breath

I have no intention of dealing with every single point included in your paper. It would take far too much time, which I do not have to spare. But secondly, I do not think it necessary to do so because the ‘foundation’ upon which it rests is faulty. Put another way, the presupposition(s) that you hold to are contrary to truth and sound biblical hermeneutics. Therefore, I want to briefly examine this fundamental aspect of your paper and then make some positive remarks as to how Scripture is to be handled. The testimony of the Church in regard to the perpetuity and administration of baptism is unanimous because of its unity in understanding biblical interpretation. Admittedly, there is a lack of unity in many ‘details’ concerning baptism; mode, recipients, and to some degree even in its meaning. Yet, just because of this disunity on some of the details, the unity concerning the perpetuity and practice of water baptism in the Christian Church becomes all the more forceful.

I. Criticism of the presuppositions held and applied.
a. Perhaps I should get this one thing out of the way at the beginning and get done with it. It is in regard to one of your sources, Dr. Robert D. Luginbill. He is a professor at Talbot Seminary. The seminary’s doctrinal position is antithetical and antagonistic to the Reformed churches and their theology, expressed in its various Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms. I cannot help but assume that the school and Dr. Luginbill are ‘Dispensationalists’. Therefore, his paper holds very little weight for not only this reason, but it is evidenced in the paper itself, i.e., his approach to Scripture is not in accord with what I deem to be sound biblical exegesis. Yes, I read his paper completely and carefully.

b. Your approach, unfortunately, is similar in kind to that of Dr. Robert D. Luginbill, i.e., a ‘Dispensational’ hermeneutic, not necessarily in the matter of its narrow definition commonly associated with the locus of Eschatology, but rather methodology. What I mean by that is that you clearly make radical distinctions and bifurcations of different parts of Scripture. This is evident in your determination that the book of Acts as a whole is ‘transitory’ in nature, thus concluding that nothing in the book of Acts can be taken as paradigmatic or normative for the Church as it developed thereafter. You simply state this as fact without offering any substantial proof of its verity. That there are things that occurred in the book of Acts which were temporary in nature is certainly true, e.g., the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit whose main purpose was to show that Gentiles were to be admitted to Christ’s Church no less than their Jewish counterparts. But the practice of baptism cannot be shown to be a temporary practice due to its very meaning and purpose, which I shall expand upon below in the next section.

c. There is misunderstanding of the “two” baptisms found prior to that commanded in Matt 28:19; baptism performed by John the Baptist and baptism performed by Jesus and His disciples. Both of these were preparatory, although the latter is far closer to that commanded by Jesus just before His ascension. Both of those two preparatory baptism were indeed temporary by design and pointed to something else and far greater. Thus Dr. Lunginbill’s attempts to refute the validity of the Church administering water baptism is moot.

d. In the ‘Baptism in the Epistles’ section, you make the following statement: “It is remarkable to note the shift in emphasis from water to spiritual baptism in the Epistles.” This was not proven, just stated. Firstly, I see no warrant nor justification upon which to base your conclusion. The record of Luke in Acts encompasses the time period during which the Epistles were written. One of the fundamental rules of biblical hermeneutics is: ‘The Epistles interpret the Gospels [and Acts]’. Thus, what we read in the pastoral Epistles of Paul are to be recognized as commentaries on what we find in the Gospels and the book of Acts. They expand upon many things which are briefly mentioned, thus giving us a clearer and deeper understanding. Secondly, if you dispense with baptism, then that which baptism signifies and seals is lost. Water baptism is pregnant with meaning, having various marvelous aspects to it which we read about in the Epistles. Paul’s explanations of these various aspects of water baptism aren’t to be a substitute for and thus a warrant to abrogate its practice. But rather a firm substantiation of not only its continued practice but of its fundamental importance to the Church and its individual members.

e. Great Commission. In this section the statement is made: “The great commission has historically been interpreted with one fundament presupposition: water. Yet in the preceding context, we believe that it is clear that the Lord cannot be referring to water, but to the Spirit…. It seems far more consistent with the flow of Christ’s words to insist that He was indeed referring to spiritual baptism.” I have to strongly object to this proposition for it is clearly unwarranted from both the passage itself (Matt 28:19) and the eisogetical insertion of this idea of “transitory period”, as well as the idea that the passages cited from Luke somehow are to determine the meaning of ‘baptism’ in the text.

1) Christ asserts His supreme and universal authority in v. 18, upon which what He is about to command His disciples to do is founded.

2) The command is the universal making of disciples (not transitory). A disciple is one who follows a master. That master is Christ, the LORD of all. Thus this discipleship involves a total commitment and allegiance.

3) Baptism is inextricably connected to the making of disciples, i.e., it is a sign of both Christ’s lordship (not transitory) and of the recipient’s commitment to follow Him as a disciple (not transitory).

4) Therefore we would expect to find and we do find that the Gospel was preached, sinners professed faith in Christ and were baptized in water. Consequently, they were received into the Church as members who continued in the teaching of the Apostles, i.e., that which the Apostles taught and which was perpetuated through other teachers. (cf. Acts 2:38,41,42,44; 8:34-36,38; 10:34-47; 16:14,15,31-33.)

II. Positive Remarks Concerning How Scripture is to be Handled and Examples Set Forth.
a) We will all agree that there is a continuity between the OT and the NT and that there is discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Of course, the disagreements come when trying to specify what is continuitous and what is discontinuitous. The historic Reformed denominations and churches all agree and insist that the Bible is a covenantal book, a record and unveiling of God’s covenant dealings with man. And, the historic Reformed and confessional churches all agree upon the continuity and oneness of the ‘Covenant of Grace’.

b) The administration of this one Covenant of Grace differs between the OT and the NT, most clearly because the OT administration was typological and thus pointed to the future and fuller fulfillment of that which it expressed in its types and shadows; i.e., the coming of the Messiah and the final establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth; the New Earth.

c) This Covenant of Grace was first established with Adam and more fully established and explained with Abraham, unfolded in the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, attains its highest fruition in the new covenant. The new covenant is the administration of grace that brings to fulfillment the promise given to Abraham: ‘In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’ (Gen 22:18). It is the blessing of Abraham that comes upon the Gentiles through Christ (Gal 3:14). Abraham is the father of all believers, and they are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise (Rom 4:16-18; Gal 3:7-9). The promises fulfilled in Christ were given to Abraham with covenantal confirmation. So it is proper and necessary to say that the new covenant is the fulfillment and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal 3:15-17). The same unity and continuity are intimated when the covenant people of God are likened to one olive tree with several branches, all of which grow from one root and stock, and form one organism (Rom 11:16-24).

The covenant made with Abraham was signified and sealed by circumcision administered by divine command (Gen 17:9-14). That circumcision is the sign of the covenant in its deepest spiritual significance is demonstrated by the fact that it is called the covenant (Gen 17:10; cf. Acts 7:8). And therefore identified as taken (cf. Gen 17:11) with the covenant in the highest reaches of its meaning (cf. Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5,6; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 4:11; Col 2:11,12).

The new covenant sign has been changed from circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10-12) to reflect the fulfillment of all that the OT administration of the covenant pointed to and promised. Water baptism is thus indispensible as some of the Puritans referred to the sacraments, as ‘visible sermons’. Baptism’s significance and fullness of meaning cannot be dispensed with for it is the sign of the Covenant of Grace which is to last until the end of the age (cp. Matt 28:20).

d) God not only brings men and women into union with Christ as the embodiment of covenant grace at the zenith of its realization, He not only gives exceeding great and precious promises that are yea and amen in Christ, but He seals this union and confirms these promises by an ordinance that portrays to our senses the certainty of His grace. Depreciation of baptism insults the wisdom and grace of God and, more particularly, His faithfulness. He confirms to us the bond of union with Himself by adding the seal of baptism, to the end that we may be more firmly established in the faith of His covenant of grace.

e) The person who refuses baptism and declines the reproach of Christ, which it entails, cannot be received as a member of Christ’s body. And the organization which discards baptism and thereby evinces its rejection of the authority and Lordship of Christ cannot be accounted a branch of the true Christian Church.

Hi Pilgrim,

Thank you so much for your response. I am grateful for your input, and for the fact that you have not immediately dismissed me.

I fear, though, that you have almost entirely misinterpreted me (both with regard to Acts and Matt 28) and got the clear impression that I am “dispensational” – which is largely my fault. I see there is a serious need for a shift in emphasis, and much clearer terminology. I haven't had much time to edit the document, but I have added a number of changes shown in red (see new attachement). I affirm that

1. I do NOT believe that Acts as a WHOLE is transitory (not transitionary); more specifically, the whole of Acts is NOT to be disregarded in all matters of faith and practice. However, some things within Acts are to be disregarded.
2. I do NOT believe that Matt 28 is transitionary at all, but fully submit to the command.
3. I do NOT necessary advocate any other part of Luginbill’s theology, aside from this article (excluding the articles he references within it).

I was vaguely aware of this when I quoted Lunginbill. As much as many of his views may be wrong, there is still a nugget of truth to be gained. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as I know you won’t throw Augustine out with his font-waters of regeneration . Luginbill may be dispensational in his eschatology, but I see no evidence from his article that he discards the whole of Acts as transitory in practice.

Pertinent observation. However, there is a serious misunderstanding because of my own error.

1. I should not have said, “Acts as a whole is transitionary,” (I did not use the word ‘transitory’, which has a different meaning,) since this can be misleading. It would have been more accurate to say, “some things that occurred in the book of Acts were temporary in nature.” I certainly do NOT discard the whole book of Acts as temporary/transitory, nor was it my intention to ever do so (as you will have read in answer 9). The Church was “transitioning” from an Old Testament state to a New Testament state. However, not all was “transitory” or “temporary,” including, for example, the Lord’s Supper.

2. “....Thus concluding that nothing in the book of Acts can be taken as paradigmatic or normative for the Church as it developed thereafter. “ Untrue. Please read answer 9 again.

3. “You simply state this fact without offering any substantial proof of its verity.” Untrue. Assuming I am referring to baptism and the Holy Spirit only, I will summarise my argument in sections 3.2-4.1 as follows (which is by no means my whole argument).
(i) “The Apostles were living during a “time of transition between the old covenant work of the Holy Spirit and the new covenant work of the Holy Spirit.” [Grudem]. I have given abundant proof for this.
(ii) Consequently, the manner in which water baptism in Acts occurred was inconsistent, and the understanding of the early church with regard to water baptism was as yet inadequate. “Some automatically assumed the relevance of Old Testament washings in a New Testament context without being told (Acts 8:34-38), some did not know anything other than John’s Baptism (Acts 18:25); some were baptised before conversion or receival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12, 17); some after (Acts 10:47); some were baptised twice (Acts 19:5), etc.” You yourself said that Acts 19:5 “should not be construed as a principle to be practiced by the Church.”
(iii) The disciples misinterpreted the first imperative in Mat 28 ("make disciples of ALL nations"), and were therefore likely to misinterpret the next ("baptising them").
(iv) We cannot therefore unreservedly apply their example without considering the rest of Scripture.
(iii) The writing of all the Epistles comes after this transitionary understanding of water baptism.
(iv) Concerning the Epistles,
There is no command for water baptism in the Epistles, but much evidence against it. All verses other than the above are spiritual in nature. I have given abundant proof from MacArthur and Grudem for this.
(v) Water baptism in superseded by spiritual baptism, in fulfilment of John the Baptist words.

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Mat 3:11

Am I correct in saying you are referring to this verse? Yes, John’s baptism was temporary. Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire is no way temporary (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:13; Titus 3:5;1 Peter 1:12, Acts 1:5, etc.). Which of Dr. Lunginbill’s words are you referring to?

1. “This was not proven, just stated.” Untrue. In section 3.2 I showed that water baptism was practiced "inconsistently" by the early church. I then devoted 5 pages (9-14) to show that baptism in Epistles is "consistently" spiritual, and that water baptism is in fact argued against.
2. “The record of Luke in Acts encompasses the time period during which the Epistles were written.” Please read section 4.1
3. “The Epistles interpret the Gospels [and Acts]” I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that as Paul corrected Peter in yielding to the circumcision party (Gal 2:11), so he corrected the transitory view of baptism in Acts.
4. “if you dispense with baptism, then that which baptism signifies and seals is lost.” I disagree. The lesser gives way to the greater, thereby magnifying it.
5. “Water baptism is pregnant with meaning, having various marvelous aspects to it which we read about in the Epistles.” See (1.) above. I humbly believe that you yourself have applied one fundamental unproven assumption through your whole argument: that the Epistles are referring to water. I have proven (not I, but others whom I have quoted), that Paul is not referring to water. When he is, he is arguing against it.

1. “This proposition for it is clearly unwarranted from both the passage itself.” In the scope of the rest of Scripture, it is far more unwarranted to hold that it refers to water.
2. “and the eisogetical insertion of this idea of “transitory period.” I hope that I am interpreting you correctly, but I did not once use “transitory” to describe the great commission. I was referring to baptism in Acts. I hold that Mat 28 is absolutely relevant for us.
3. The passages (Lk.4:18; 11:13; 12:12; 24:48; Jn.7:39; 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; 20:22; Acts 1:4-8) are used to show Christ’s emphasis (on the Spirit), which provide the background setting in which Christ spoke.
4. Christ’s understanding was transcendent over a “transitionary period” of water baptism in Acts. Consider, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” Why did they first only go to the Jews, regarding the gentiles as unclean? The Lord had to forcefully show Peter that he ought not regard any man as unclean, before he actually realise what Christ meant, by “all nations.” (Mat 28:19, c.f. Acts 1:8, “to the end of the earth.”). Yet through all of this, Christ’s meaning remained the same.
5. “The command is the universal making of disciples (not transitory).” Agreed. “Baptism is inextricably connected to the making of disciples, i.e., it is a sign of both Christ’s lordship (not transitory) and of the recipient’s commitment to follow Him as a disciple (not transitory).” Agreed. Yet, you assume water. If the disciples were confused about “all nations,” then will you assume that they were totally clear about water baptism (please read my red comments in the new document on this)? I believe you are “back-interpreting” Mat 28, with this assumption. “The assumption on the part of even the apostles in the early going that water-baptism is a natural thing to do for those who accept Christ proceeds from an as yet incomplete understanding of the new reality of the cross and resurrection on the one hand, and of the consequent baptism of the Spirit on the other.” Please read especially section 3.2 again, bearing in mind that I do not view the whole of Acts as transitionary.
6. “Therefore we would expect to find and we do find that the Gospel was preached, sinners professed faith in Christ and were baptized in water.” You have missed what I mentioned in point 4, and have assumed that the disciples were correctly applying Christ’s words. Please don’t shoot me down on this point, but consider... the disciples failed to grasp what Christ meant by “all nations.” In fact they blatantly [temporarily] disobeyed the command, by “speaking the word to no one except Jews.” (Acts 11:19). Now will we be so bold as to hold that the disciples, who misinterpreted Matt 28:19a, and who were yet submerged in an old testament understanding of things at this stage, who practiced baptism inconsistently in Acts, correctly interpreted Matt 28:19b? To unreservedly build a doctrine on a transitional era (I say this carefully, since we do indeed derive much doctrine from the book of Acts), without comparing it to the rest of Scripture, has been one of the pitfalls of the Pentecostals, and I fear, most of the Christian world to this day (regarding baptism).

Thank you for points IIa-c, which I dearly hold to. However, I must seriously differ on this point. I have labelled your sentences 1-3 in order to answer them.
1. (i) You have assumed (without proving) Col 2 is referring to water, when I have given evidence that it is not (Answer 8, and MacArthur’s comments). Applying water to Col 2 is by no means a natural consequence of points IIa-c.
(ii) The seal of every believer is the Holy Spirit (“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). The sign is also works and a confession with the mouth. The antitype (if I use the term correctly) of physical circumcision is the spiritual circumcision of Christ by the Spirit, which is a “matter of the heart, by the Spirit” (Rom 2:29), and “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” I deem it far worse biblical exegesis to apply water baptism to Col. I cannot possibly imagine how Paul could be glad of only baptising a few, or saying that he was not sent to baptise, if this were the case. To me, points IIa-c show more clearly that the Holy Spirit is the “fulfillment of all that the OT administration of the covenant pointed to and promised,” because he and his work ARE are promise (Acts 2:33, Gal 3:14). We receive the Spirit through spiritual baptism (Mat 3:11).
2. I strongly disagree with this. Please see section 6.3.
3. Yes, but you have again assumed water.

I strongly disagree, and feel that this response is highly prejudiced. Rather, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” Eph 1:13. He confirms to us this union by pouring His love “into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us,” “by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15) and producing in us the fruit of the Spirit that shows that we are indeed united to Him. (Mat 7:16) “By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3). “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:13, etc.).

1. On the contrary, we submit more now to Christ’s authority and Lordship in Matt 28 with greater fervency than ever, knowing how far more glorious the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.
2. Please consider the rest of my argument from 1 Cor 12:12, section 6.2.

I hope this has helped to make things more clear, and will provide a better platform for further discussion... I’ve tried to write this response with much reserve (having fought down much emotion!), knowing that both you and the Puritans who support you are much more Scripturally knowledgeable than I ... but my conscience forbids me to submit to something of which I am not persuaded from Scripture.

Peytonator,

Seriously, there is far too much "verbiage" in your responses and article for me to spend the necessary time on. It is fraught with hermeneutical errors and erroneous presuppositions. I really don't mean to 'slam' you on this, but books have been written on the subject of water and Spirit baptism which soundly refute your position.

This is a good example of erroneous presuppositions. WHERE, pray tell, is it written that the disciples (250+) 'failed to grasp' the significance of "all nations"? Peter had to be shown that Gentiles were to be fully received into the Church (Acts 10:9ff; 11:4ff), but what has that to do with the meaning of Christ's commandment to make disciples of all nations and BAPTIZE them in the name of the Triune God? There simply is no relationship between the two which would change the clear meaning making of disciples, baptizing them with water, and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded them. That they did exactly this is indisputable.

IF, as I understand your interpretation of Matt 28:19, you are positing that "baptize them..." is to be understood as "Spirit baptism" or some kind of "spiritual baptism", correct? IF <-- this is what you are espousing, it is totally illogical and not substantiated anywhere in Scripture. The disciples of Christ, which were in the 1000s, did not have any power to baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit. Secondly, grammatically it makes no sense whatsoever.... baptizing them [in/with/by] the Spirit into the name of the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit??

Lastly, one of the major presuppositional flaws is that you are CONTRASTING water baptism and [S]spirit baptism, which Scripture nowhere encourages. To the contrary, they are two different things, both of which exist. The former is to be administered by man and the latter is given by God. It is not "either/or" but rather "both/and".

I shall say no more other than to once again impress upon you severity of your view. Am I, or anyone else for that matter, to seriously believe that the Church has been totally ignorant on this matter of baptism and has taught millions false doctrine... UNTIL you and a perhaps a few others came along with the truth? Do you seriously believe that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Tertullian, Owen, Edwards, Nettleton, Swinnock, Goodwin, Brown, McCheyne, Ursinus, Hodge, Warfield, Shedd, Kersten, Bavinck, Strong, Gill, Fuller, Hoeksema, Berkhof, Lenski, Hendriksen and countless others, all theological giants representing their respective and varied denominations totally failed to grasp the significance and perpetuity of water baptism? How could this be? And, of a much lesser significance is my own study on the subject in English and the original languages of Scripture and of Church history. But nonetheless, what I came to understand is in full accord with 2000 years of scholarship.

Would you at least think of what you are more than implying by taking this novel view of water baptism? Perhaps you might be motivated to do some deep soul searching on this matter by reading the following article by Keith Mathison: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

Pilgrim,

The disciples were “speaking the word to no one except Jews.” (Acts 11:19), which was blatant disobedience of Mat 28:19a. Certainly their EARLY faulty view of the salvation of “all nations,” including Gentiles, did not “change the clear meaning” of Christ. But the

- Old Testament entrenched understanding of the disciples indicated by their faulty view of the most fundamental tenant of the great commission,
- their 'slowness of heart to believe,"
- their inconsistent practicing of baptism in Acts,
- the Old Testament context of water baptism for Gentile Proselytes, and
- the EPISTLES,

are certainly a “sure indicator that water baptism [from Acts] cannot be unreservedly imitated ...” i.e., it throws a serious question as to whether what they did was right. As you will agree, Acts must first be compared with the rest of Scripture. Everything post Acts is spiritual (aside from the few cases I mentioned, which argue against water). Have I not proven this? Can you prove that Mat 28 is referring to water, in the light of 1 Cor 1:17?

Is the trinity logical? God’s omnipresence? God’s sovereignty and human responsibility? In section 5, I explicitly asked and answered the question, “how can such a command be given to his disciples, who had no power to save?” “To preach the gospel is not to baptise, but is the means by which Christ does. For we are “born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.“ Just as we don’t “save others by snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 1:23) (Christ does!), but preach the Word as the means of thereof, so we “teach the nations” the living and abiding Word of God as the means of Christ baptising - that is, simply as the means of their receiving the Spirit. In fact, in some sense, the apostles actually DID baptise people with the Holy Spirit when they placed their hands on them (Acts 8:17). In that case, perhaps this command is actually only for the early disciples, as the end of Mark’s version of the great commission is: “...And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons... etc.”

Are Matt 3:11, 1 Corinthians 1:17, Heb 6:1-2, 9:10, 1 Peter 3:21 not making a serious contrast?

This grieves me, but I hear you. I have repeatedly admitted my concern about church history, but have sought to substantiate my view with multitudes of Scriptures. It would be helpful to the discussion if it were soaked in more Scripture.

No, you definitely have not proven your view in the least. I find the proof for the perpetuity and necessity of water baptism as presented by 100s over the span of 2000 years far more convincing. The CHURCH has deemed it so and continues to do so. You stand in opposition to ALL of that testimony. But you haven't addressed that major and impassable hurdle yet. Would you kindly try and do so? I've brought this up more than twice now.

Again, let me state my objection one last time. The lack of understanding of the universality of God's saving grace in Christ, i.e., Jews AND Gentiles, on the part of some of the disciples does not in any way equate with nor demand that their understanding of the other aspects of Christ's command to them in Matt 19:18-20 was flawed. And even more so, their not having come to initially comprehend the universality of preaching the Gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e., "all nations" has no logical bearing whatsoever on the meaning nor perpetuity of administering water baptism.

The fact that Acts records that water baptism was practiced by all and administered to 'all nations', i.e., to Jews as well as Gentiles is certainly proof enough. The inclusiveness of salvation was learned early on by the disciples, not at the end of their earthly lives. It was because they learned that the Church was to be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that they baptized both.

1 Corinthians 1:17 (ASV) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

This text has absolutely no relevancy to your argument. Paul is simply stated that his primary responsibility was to preach and teach and not be involved in ecclesiastical affairs. Converts were received into membership and baptized by those elders who were appointed for that purpose. The CONTEXT, vv. 11-16 should be enough to reveal the true meaning of v. 17. In fact, we read that Paul did, in fact, administer water baptism (cf. v.14,16; Acts 16:14,15). Thus Paul is not saying baptism was unimportant and certainly not abrogated.

Sorry, but your 'logic' even here is woefully flawed and at best irrelevant to what I wrote, i.e., your positing that "baptize them into the name of..." means that the disciples were to administer/perform "spirit baptism" upon those who became disciples is illogical and thus gave various reasons why it is illogical. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is beyond man's ability to grasp in its fullness has nothing to do with what you are claiming for Matt 28:19. We can indeed comprehend the Trinity to a certain degree else there would be no doctrine of the Trinity whatsoever. The Church has comprehended the truth of the triunity of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures. The result of the Church's comprehension of the Trinity was then officially stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. And throughout the history of the Church the respective confessions of the various denominations affirmed this truth. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is hardly 'illogical'. But your wanting to make "baptize them into the name of..." to mean 'spirit baptism' is illogical. Can you please provide even one reference where anyone performed 'spirit baptism' on someone else, baptizing them 'in[to] the name of the Father, and in[to] the Son, and in[to] the Holy Spirit"? 1Cor 1:10-13 alone is sufficient to silence any such suggestion.

Yes, some of those texts are making contrasts but NONE are contrasting water baptism AGAINST the baptism or coming of the Holy Spirit. I am baffled how you can think they do?? As stated in the quote above, BOTH water baptism and [S]spirit baptism are biblical truths. This is yet another example of how you are forcing a preconceived idea upon Scripture in order to justify your view. Must I ask but another time... How is it that no one in 2000 years has embraced what you and a handful of others are espousing? Has the entirety of Christendom been in the dark and taught error because they lacked your insight into interpreting Scripture? Aside from all the brilliant and godly men which God Himself raised up in the Church during those 2000 years, I can think of one of my former profs who had memorized the entire NT in Greek and could recite many parts of in reverse if asked. He was more than acquainted with its contents and the doctrines therein. It is inconceivable to me that he somehow totally missed the truth about water baptism which you and Luginbill seem to have miraculously discovered.

Well, we can certainly agree on that one thing... you are without question:

Pilgrim,

At the very least, the argument regarding the Apostles understanding of Mat 28 proves that the Apostles were steeped in an Old Testament understanding early on in Acts. Why do we not imitate their example from before Peter’s experience? Because it transitioning, and because of the Epistles. But I will not pursue this subsidiary argument further because you are missing the wood for the trees.

Providentially I heard a Baptist preacher use the word "transitionary" in a sermon I was listening to in the car today. Now, you are unreservedly accepting baptism from Acts. Which method shall we choose? Before conversion (Acts 8:12, 17)? After (Acts 10:47)? Before receival the Spirit (Acts 8:16)? After (Acts 10:47)? Twice (Acts 19:5)? Once (Acts 9:18)? Jewish proselyte baptism was an accepted Jewish ritual of that day. The disciples understanding of baptism was steeped in this tradition, as is shown by the Ethiopian Eunuch, and they naturally continued baptism because of this context. Please consider what I said about this in the document before you make a response.
Again, this all doesn’t explicitly prove that baptism is obsolete, BUT it does highlight that you can’t unreservedly imitate Acts without comparing it with the Epistles. Even if I had not said what I did above, you MUST agree with this, because otherwise, we certainly will fall into the Pentecostal trap.

1. The Epistles were written AFTER the baptisms in Acts.
2. What do they say?

Some, for example, contradict the physical (the document explains why):

1 Corinthians 1:13-17; Hebrews 6:2; 9:10, 1 Peter 3:21

Some, for example, advocate the spiritual:

Eph 4:5; Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 12:13; Mat 3:11; 1 Pet 3:21

You are not taking issue with me on this point, but MacArthur and Grudem. You have practically ignored EVERYTHING that I have quoted from these men and therefore you think that I have “definitely have not proven [my] view in the least.” I have already given a lengthy answer to your very objection on 1 Cor 1, in the document I posted. It is remarkable that you view the “GREAT COMMISSION” as a mere “ecclesiastical affair.” I was meditating on it this morning, and see the following:

Paul thanked God that he baptised few people, and indeed, he did not even know anyone “beyond the household of Stephanus” whom he baptised. He gives TWO reasons for this:

1. “SO THAT,” verse 15, “no one may say that you were baptized in my name.” This has nothing to do with Paul’s “primary responsibility” but has to do with unity. He withheld in order to prevent “division” and boasting that they were baptised in his name.

2. “FOR,” verse 16, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel...” Paul was NOT called to baptise, BUT to preach the gospel. This is exclusive phraseology. Paul was called to something other than baptising, therefore he baptised only few. Obviously he has transitioned (post Acts 19:21 - see "Chronology") in his thinking regarding baptism, and sees no need to baptise any more. Either then,
(i) Christ meant something other than water in Mat 28, namely, the Spirit (which I proven Scripurally, but you merely discard as illogical), or
(ii) Christ’s command can only applied for a certain transitionary time during Acts, as with the ecstatic gifts. Which of these it is, I am not certain right now.

This is sadly the last time I will reply. I can’t keep up with varsity and this... too distracting! But Jeff, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I hope to perhaps update you once as my thinking progresses (I am by no means settled on this issue). I don’t appreciate facetious comments, but I do confirm that we are indeed united under this great gospel truth

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:1-2

Every blessing to you in Christ,

Graham

I went along with your proposition that the Apostles/disciples didn't understand the meaning of "all nations", which alleged misunderstanding you selectively forced upon baptism, but excluded their "going", "making disciples" and "teaching them all that I commanded you.", only to show that the fallacy of your 'logic'. The fact is, the Apostles and disciples were more than aware that "all nations" meant that Gentiles were to be received into the Church.

Acts 1:8 (ASV) "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Early on, the Council of Jerusalem recognized that Gentiles were to be equal recipients of God's grace (Acts 15). And thus Gentile believers were received into the Church and given the sign of the new covenant; baptism. For some of the Jews, e.g., the Pharisees, Gentiles were to be totally excluded. But the majority of the Jews, including some of the disciples and Peter as well, Gentiles were received into the Church but looked upon as second-class citizens. They believed that Gentiles needed to add to their faith some of the old covenant ceremonial laws, e.g., circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. This was basis for Paul's rebuke of Peter (Gal 2:11f). The Gentiles were to be received in FULL, for the "wall of the Gentiles" aka: wall of separation which was built in the Temple to restrict Gentiles from FULL access to God was now broken down (Eph 2:12-14). Those who wanted to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, showing that they were being received, had to learn that the sign of the covenant had been changed to reflect the new universality and new spirituality of the new [administration] of the covenant; baptism.

There are records of Gentiles being received into the people of God and given the sign of the covenant in the OT, e.g., Gen 17:9-14. And not only were some Gentiles received into the community of God's people, they were instrumental in bring forth the promised Messiah; Ruth.

Next, I didn't comment on your references to John MacArthur or Wayne Grudem because they too were illogical and irrelevant. Why would you use quotes from either of these two men when both, especially MacArthur as a die-hard Baptist, would totally reject your premise? They offered no "proof" for your position whatsoever. To try and extract from them justification of your view is fallacious and a classic example of casuistry.

As I mentioned before, these texts have no relevance to your proposition. In fact, some prove otherwise, e.g,. 1Pet 3:1.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (ASV) "that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: (21) which also after a true likeness doth now save you, [even] baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;"

The comparison Peter is using is crystal clear and has been for 2000 years of Church history as recorded in its confessions and catechisms. WATER is referred to in Peter's reference to Noah and compared to the WATER of baptism. This 'water' of water baptism Peter says is not to be seen/understood as some ceremonial external washing but internal. Water baptism has a spiritual significance to it, which you and Luginbill and perhaps a handful of others have totally missed.

I took some time to try and get you to at least think about the continuity of the one Covenant of Grace and its signs respective to its administration; circumcision and water baptism (cf. Col 2:11,12; cp. Rom 6:4). One purpose of baptism is to symbolize the death and burial of the old man, and that by the mighty power of God alone, whose power we lay hold on by faith, in the death and resurrection of Christ. Contrariwise, the "baptism of the Spirit" was transitory for it served a specific purpose to show the full inclusion of the Gentiles. This is NOT the same as the "giving of the Spirit" or the "indwelling of the Spirit", which is imperceivable compared to that which we read about in Acts. The "baptism of the Spirit" as first experienced and witnessed with the disciples at Pentecost verified that their message was from God. And when SOME of the Gentiles had a similar experience, it unified the new covenant Church when it was first established. Afterward the Gentiles were considered fellow heirs of the grace of Christ which was signified and sealed in their water baptism (Gal 2:26-29).

As for the rest, it is all superfluous. I don't mean to be trite, but you have missed the whole point as to why the Church for 2000+ years has continued to administer water baptism. And this brings me to my last point; a point which I have raised many times before and which you have selectively chosen to ignore. Again, how is it that all the brilliant men which God has raised up in the Church throughout history, to whom the Holy Spirit was given and by Whom the truth is known, failed to know the truth about water baptism, but you some 2000 years later have discovered it? It is the Church, which is the church of the living God, [and is] the pillar and ground of the truth, not any individual apart from the Church. This is NOT to say that the visible Church in its pronouncements is infallible (contra. Romanism, Orthodox). But it is the institution ordained by God wherein the Holy Spirit reveals truth, teaches it, preaches it, and preserves it by guarding it against heresy. You apparently have little or no appreciation for this biblical truth. For, you unabashedly stand against its teaching in regard to water baptism. Most take the exact opposite approach. Having come to a preliminary view concerning some subject, they consult the Church and its teaching on the subject and compare them. They submit to the secondary authority of the Church and recognize that its teachers have been mightily gifted of God in the Scriptures. And should their view be contrary to what the Church has held, they seriously question the verity of their conclusion and seek to understand where they went wrong. Even the Apostle Paul submitted himself to the council of the Church, after having been instructed by Christ himself. This is known as "humility".

I was taught that one should be "precise, profound and cogent" in presenting arguments. You have done none of these things but rather you have jumped all over the place, resting texts out of context, practiced eisegesis, casuistry, and refused to deal with questions asked, even the one above re: the testimony of the Church. You claim to be still studying and learning about water baptism, but from your responses here, I for one, would never come to that conclusion. You appear to be obsessed with your rejection of water baptism for some reason other than an alleged biblical proof since you have offered no valid nor conclusive proof.

You will never prove your position because it is indefensible and the Church has so said as much for 2000 years. If nothing else, you will never convince me that spirit baptism has replaced water baptism because my own studies have concluded that such a view is spurious and is not found in Scripture and therefore it is not reasonable.

Enjoy your "Varsity".

Graham

I don't intend to get too involved in this discussion, however as I think about your position that we should no longer be baptizing people. I am having a hard time understanding where you are coming from, being as how you are basically challenging over 2000 years of the Church’s teaching on baptism.
Yes, there are differences of opinion among Christians on Baptism (i.e. Credo-Baptism vs. Paedo-Baptism); but your position seems to be quite foreign to any position that I am aware of.
In your profile you indicate that you are a Baptist. I would humbly suggest that you are mistaken about considering yourself a Baptist. You may attend a Baptist Church, but what you have said about Baptism, certainly is not the teaching of any Baptist Church that I am aware of.
Is your pastor aware of your beliefs on this subject?

By the way, I am a Reformed Baptist.

Tom

Hi Tom,

To answer your questions...

Yes, I go to a reformed Baptist church, and believe everything that reformed Baptists believe (except for baptism ). Forgive me that things on this thread are confusing, and for my lack of clarity. This topic has only been the object of my study for a short amount of time, and I take the exhortation to write more concisely. However, it has been a topic that my father has thrashed out for many years (with my pastor and previous pastors). I personally have not yet spoken to my pastor because of my dad's interaction with him. So I guess I'm not coming from anywhere aside from what my dad taught me. I wrote 90% of that document from scratch before finding out about Lunginbill. But actually, much of what I've said IS what many Baptists believe. For example:

1. That baptism in the Epistles is spiritual, as MacArthur and Grudem point out.
2. That Acts is a transitionary period between covenants, and is sometimes transitory in practice.
3. That baptism in not necessary for membership nor eldership because of 1 Cor 12:13 (as my pastor believes).

Some aspects of my thoughts on baptism are not novel (relatively speaking), but have been around for over 300 years. Pilgrim has already hinted who the individuals were who held to these beliefs, whom I fear to name, because of the prejudice it creates in peoples minds. But I will risk it, because there is a nugget of truth to be gained from even the worst of theologians. This is a summary of my thoughts at the moment:


“We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” (Nicene Creed)

The statements in [italics] are mine, the last of which is quite inconclusive.

I just want to point something out, which to put it lightly, freaks me out completely. I read a website which quoted more than 20 early church fathers. Their unanimous testimony was that we are reborn in water baptism, and that baptism is to be given also to infants. Ambrose, Clement, Augustine, Basil, Tertullian, you name it. In fact I read from Clement, the water of baptism "alone can quench the violence of the future fire", and "confer salvation." and Jerome, "'Q. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized? A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism." You would be shocked to hear what they say about original sin and baptism. Let me remind you that Luther's view was much more in line with this: "It works the forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives all eternal salvation who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare." But modern paedobaptists and baptists in particular are totally out of sync with this. In fact, the baptist view, if I am not mistaken, is the most novel of all; indeed, almost as novel as the view which Robert Barclay had in 1678 -- that Baptism with the Spirit supersedes baptism with water. Anyway, that was just food for thought...What's going on here?!

Pilgrim, I hold these views with a light fist. This is my "prelimary" view, which I hope to address with my pastor soon. Sadly, though, he has delayed 5 years in giving my dad a Scriptural answer to this topic, which is one of the reasons why I posted the topic here. At the moment, I am seriously considering the validity of my view, though of course, it seems right to me at the moment... perhaps things will change. But Jeff, what am I to do? How am I do contradict my conscience? What if I am still not persuaded by my pastor when I speak to him? In fact, should I not rather submit to the testimony of the early church... baptismal regeneration and washing away of sins with water? IF <--- they all hold to baptismal salvation then surely, to be consistant, you should also? "How is it that all the brilliant men which God has raised up in the Church throughout history" are all wrong, and that "you unabashedly stand against" their teaching?

1. Conscience is no guide for truth, for even those who are regenerate still have the remnants of sin within which distorts the intellect, affections and will. Scripture in myriad places, in both the OT and NT, makes this not only clear but warns against resting upon one's 'conscience' as the final arbiter. How about just a few succinct examples:

Proverbs 3:5 (ASV) "Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding:"

Proverbs 10:8 (ASV) "The wise in heart will receive commandments; But a prating fool shall fall."

Proverbs 12:15 (ASV) "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; But he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel."

Proverbs 28:26 (ASV) "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool; But whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered."

1 Corinthians 3:18 (ASV) "Let no man deceive himself. If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise."

1Timothy 3:15 (ASV) "but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

2. Consider the 'source' of your view in light of #1.

3. Consider the overwhelming unanimity of the historic and confessional view; not either/or, but both/and re: water baptism and spirit baptism.

4. Your pastor's understanding of 1Cor 12:13, which appears you are in full agreement, is in error. The CONTEXT cannot support the view exegetically. Again, how is it that 1000s of far more godly, intellectually brilliant and recognized Spirit-filled men throughout history all agree on the understanding of this aspect of water baptism and of the perpetuity of it for the Church, but you would charge them all with being ignorant of the truth and incapable of sound biblical interpretation???

Just in case you missed my edit (which I added just after you posted...

Very few of the ECF held to "baptismal regeneration". If there was ever a 'transitory' period in Church history, that is it. Heresies and errors abounded. Thus most read the ECF writings with much scrutiny. You are trying to equate the writings of a few individuals with the testimony of a great mass of collective individuals who penned the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms.

Thus the answer is a resounding, "No!!", it is not the same as the testimony found in the great Ecumenical Creeds; Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon, Orange, etc., and likewise as the testimony in the great Confessions and Catechisms of all the various denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation. Perhaps you would benefit to familiarize yourself with some of the 'history of doctrine' textbooks, e.g., The History of Christian Doctrines by Louis Berkhof. The doctrines contained in the historic Confessions and Catechisms were hammered out over decades and sometimes centuries in the context of controversy and finally set forth as the 'rule of faith and practice' which the respective churches held to be true.

It is sheer folly to think you can re-invent the wheel. Likewise it is utter nonsense to adopt an attitude, such as that held by Alexander Campbell, who boasted he approached the Scriptures with no bias or presuppositions. Such men invariably have held to and do hold to doctrines which are contrary to ALL the historic doctrines of the Church. They all have been judged to be intractable heretics.

Lastly, in this matter of your solitary understanding of water baptism being superseded and thus abrogated by 'spirit baptism', you are not going to find but a handful of individuals who will agree with you. Why? Simply because hermeneutically, exegetically and confessionally it is indefensible. I can't stress this enough... your 'handling' of Scripture is fundamentally flawed and thus your conclusions are flawed. Believers are to 'rightly handle [interpretation and application] the Word of truth (2Tim 2:15).

2 Timothy 2:14-18 (ASV) "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging [them] in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear. Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth. But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: or whom is Hymenaeus an Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some."

This subject is not some frivolous musing such as whether it is appropriate for ministers to wear blue ties or green ties with a grey suit. Baptism [water] is a fundamental doctrine of the Church. Thus, you should expect that you are going to meet strong and passionate resistance from every quarter; from babes in Christ to the learned in the Church. And the more you attempt to defend your view, and here I have to be blatantly honest with you, the more you reveal your ignorance of Scripture and your mangling of it. For the very last time, do yourself a favor and ask yourself how it is this doctrine of water baptism which you so openly reject has been adopted by the universal Church for two millennia. READ some of the good commentators on the passages which you hold at variance with the historic position, e.g., Calvin, Hendriksen, Murray, et al. See how they handle Scripture.

Thanks for this answer. I will definitely do so.