Tag Archives: Baptism

Christ sent me not to baptize…

1 Reply

waterAs we look at passages in the New Testament that teach about baptism, we come to 1 Corinthians 1. It’s a passage that merits more than a superficial read. Many have read the passage quickly and come away with the idea that Paul here is denying the importance of baptism. Did Paul not care if people were baptized or not? Let’s read his words and find out:

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:13–17)

Paul is writing to a church that is suffering division. More than that, people were rallying around certain teachers, claiming to be true to their doctrine. Paul had described the situation in the previous verses:

“My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.”” (1 Corinthians 1:11–12)

So Paul says, “Were you baptized into my name?” Note the assumption. He assumes that the Corinthians had been baptized, baptized in the name of Christ. It’s not “those of you that were baptized”; Paul addresses them as baptized believers. He even says that directly in a later passage in Corinthians: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Paul doesn’t say “I am thankful that few of you were baptized.” He says, “I’m thankful I didn’t baptize any of you except…” He’s talking about who was the person who actually lowered these people into the water. He’s glad he didn’t do that much so as not to encourage further claims of being “of Paul.”

Maybe this doesn’t happen as much in the States, where people keep tabs on who baptized them. It certainly does overseas, especially where foreign missionaries are involved. If we’re not careful, an elite caste grows up in the church: those who were baptized by foreigners.

That’s why I avoid baptizing people when traveling. I want to see them baptized. I teach them to be baptized. I rejoice when they are baptized. But I prefer that it be done by locals, not by me, the visiting evangelist.

Which is what Paul is saying. He doesn’t want to brag about how many people have been baptized by his hand. That’s not what he was sent to do. He was sent to preach the gospel so that people would be baptized. He wasn’t sent to put people under the water himself.

Paul affirms the importance of baptism, while devaluing the identity of the person who does the actual baptizing. As he will say later, what matters is that God’s Spirit is at work, baptizing us into Christ’s body. Which hands help us into the water is of little importance.

Baptism as new birth in Romans 6

Leave a reply

waterLeaving the book of Acts, we next come to Romans as we look at New Testament texts about baptism. In Romans, Paul expounds at lengths about what salvation by faith looks like. As he discusses the implications of salvation by the grace of God, rather than man’s efforts, he addresses a possible objection:

“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:1–4)

It’s important to remember that Romans 6 is not about baptism. It’s about repentance. It’s about the new life the Christian lives after his baptism. Yet we learn several important things from this mention of baptism:

  • Baptism is a connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. I’m definitely not a “that’s the definition of the gospel” guy, for the gospel means much more than that. That fact, however, doesn’t take away from the significance of this connection.
  • Baptism is a burial. Paul’s use of this imagery reminds us of how baptism was done.
  • Baptism occurs at the beginning of the new life. In that sense, it is a new birth. It is a new beginning. We take our old self and bury it, and a new creation comes out of the water.
  • That’s why baptism makes sense at the time of conversion. And it doesn’t make sense at other times. If there’s not going to be a change, there’s no sense in baptizing. If the change occurred before, then just who are we burying? What old self is being left behind?

I’ll say it again: it’s modernistic, Western thinking to want to separate out faith and its response, to want to build a timeline of salvation that says, “Here you’re lost; and at this exact moment you’re saved.” The belief, the repentance, the baptism… they are all wrapped up into one package. If you don’t believe, baptism makes no sense. If you haven’t repented, baptism makes no sense. But when those things are all present, there is a wondrous spiritual event where God takes his creation and makes it into something new.

Be careful little eyes what source you use

2 Replies

waterI got to have lunch with Mark Edge the other day. Mark and I were roommates in college and coworkers in Argentina. As he and I talked, I mentioned how one scholarly friend had shown incredible bias in a comment on Facebook. Mark shrugged and said, “I’ve learned that nobody is exempt from that.” (No, not a direct quote; but that’s the gist)

When studying the issue of baptism, it helps to spot the biases in the discussion, both ours and those of others. This can be an emotionally charged issue, especially for those of us in the churches of Christ. We’ve held a minority view on the subject of baptism for years. (Ironically, as much of the evangelical world moves to give more respect to baptism, an equal proportion within churches of Christ are moving the other way)

Undoubtedly, many were overly zealous in the past in discussions about baptism, elevating this act of faith to the status of a saving work. This led many to react and overreact, including some scholars. One that I feel must have had dealings with aggressive members of our fellowship was the Greek scholar A.T. Robertson.

One of the first investments in Bible study resources that I made as a student was the purchase of Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. (You can consult this set online online on many sites, including Bible Study Tools) That’s an excellent resource to give insights into the original Greek text. The reader needs to be aware, however, of Robertson’s anti-baptism bias.

Here are some examples:

The omission of baptized with “disbelieveth” would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark. (Mark 16:16)
One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. (Acts 2:38)
And Simon also himself believed (Ho de Simwn kai auto episteusen). Note the same verb in the aorist tense episteusen. What did he believe? Evidently that Jesus was this “power of God” not himself (Simon). He saw that the miracles wrought by Philip in the name of Christ were genuine while he knew that his own were frauds. He wanted this power that Philip had to add to his own pretensions. “He was probably half victim of self-delusion, half conscious impostor” (Furneaux). He was determined to get this new “power,” but had no sense of personal need of Jesus as Saviour for his sins. So he submitted to baptism (baptisqei, first aorist passive participle of baptizw), clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation. (Acts 8:13)
It is possible, as in Acts 2:38 , to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul’s vivid and picturesque language. (Acts 22:16)
In the symbol of baptism the resurrection to new life in Christ is pictured with an allusion to Christ’s own resurrection and to our final resurrection. Paul does not mean to say that the new life in Christ is caused or created by the act of baptism. That is grossly to misunderstand him. The Gnostics and the Judaizers were sacramentalists, but not so Paul the champion of spiritual Christianity. (Colossians 2:12)

Time and again, Robertson argues not from the evidence of the text or grammatical constructions, but from his own previously held beliefs (as he states clearly in the discussion of Acts 2:38). As long as we recognize that fact, we can include Robertson’s views in any discussion. He is one man stating his opinion, standing on the same ground as any other. But if we try to present him as a scholar on this subject, we’re on dangerous ground.

The baptism of the apostle Paul

2 Replies

The book Acts records three accounts of Paul’s conversion. In Acts 26, Paul tells the story, but stops at the vision he received on the road to Damascus. In Acts 22, he tells the story while speaking to a mob that had just tried to kill him. In Acts 9, Luke records the story himself.

Here’s the account from Acts 9:

“As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered. The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.” “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.” (Acts 9:3–19)

And here’s how Paul told the story in Acts 22:

“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ “ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. “ ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me. “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him. “Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’” (Acts 22:6–16)

In Acts 9, Ananias says that he had come to end Paul’s blindness and to allow him to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul is healed (Ananias has placed his hands on Paul) and proceeds to be baptized. Little is said about why Paul was baptized.

In Acts 22, Ananias tells Paul to be baptized. Part of that baptism is a “calling on the name of the Lord.” One result of that baptism is the washing away of Paul’s sins.

The connection between “baptism” and “washing” is intentional here. When the believer calls upon the name of the Lord in coming to him for salvation, his sins are washed away. An integral part of that “calling” is the act of being baptized in water.

Why I don’t like the term ‘water baptism’

2 Replies

waterI’m not sure when people began using the term “water baptism.” Seems like it’s becoming more and more common. The phrase is often used by those who want to take passages about baptism and argue that we don’t know if it’s baptism in the Spirit or baptism in water. [Jr used it in a comment the other day; I’m not implying that he meant anything by that.]

I consider ‘water baptism’ to be a redundancy. It’s like talking about water swimming or food eating. I can be swimming in debt. I can eat my words. But when I tell someone that I was swimming, rarely do they ask, “In what?”; when I talk about eating, they don’t ask me if it was food that I ate.

In the same way, when Jesus told his disciples to make disciples by baptizing and teaching them, the disciples didn’t walk away saying, “I wonder what we’re supposed to baptize them with.” When Peter told the crowd at Pentecost that they were to repent and be baptized, no one shouted out, “Baptized in what?”

The Bible does refer to the outpouring of the Spirit as Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit. And Jesus refers to his death as a baptism (Mark 10:38–39). Neither of these figurative uses of the term “baptism” change the fact that the word was understandable to the original hearers. By context, they knew when a usage was figurative. Otherwise, they knew to take the word at face value: immersion in water.

Let’s not muddy the waters by using a term that only obscures the original meaning.