Analysis of the United Methodist Church"s Teaching on Baptism

Although this document does not bear an official seal of the United Methodist Church, it is available from a church near the University of Central Florida in Orlando. There are twelve sections, which will be examined in light of the Scriptures.

In section I, the document (no individual writer is listed) states that there are two forms of baptism "in the Christians [sic] Church today." Already they have presented a fundamental flaw in their thinking. Why would the church today be different from the church in the New Testament? Although there are no Scriptures quoted in this opening point, they do cite them in Section II. So what gives? Are we bound by the church of the first century, thus citing the teachings of the Bible, or is the church today something altogether separate? Are we patterning ourselves after the church as described in the Book of Acts, or have men changed what the church is now? The truth is that the Bible is our only authority, but men have changed what it says to suit themselves. The United Methodist Church (UMC) reveals immediately the dilemma they are in. What they practice is not in the Bible, yet they cite the Bible as authority. What an unenviable position!

They state that in the church today there are two types of baptism. They could not get these from the New Testament. The first of these is infant baptism. No Scripture is cited for a very good reason; this practice is not found in the New Testament. No concordance contains the phrase, infant baptism. So where did the church today get this practice from? It serves to highlight the dilemma they have. They cite Bible verses for some things, but the church today will freely practice what the New Testament does not authorize when it so desires.

The second baptism in their document is "believer's baptism." Let them define what they mean by this phrase:

People are baptized after they personally "say yes" to God (placed his / her trust in Christ for salvation).

Bible students will recognize how that Peter and others preached "saying yes" to God. Okay, that was a facetious remarkound found facfound point. This kind of language is not found in the New Testament. Have these people who are "saying yes" repented of their sins? Were they saved before or after their baptism? The words are so ambiguous that one cannot tell. A person can say that he believes in and trusts God, without ever having repented of his sins, which is essential (Luke 13:3). At what point does salvation occur? We do not know from these words, but it is entirely likely that neither of the baptisms this church accepts today is found in the New Testament.

Section II: Infant Baptism

The purpose of this section is to justify the practice of infant baptism, but none of the verses provided says anything about infants. Peter, on Pentecost, said that the promise of salvation was to them and their children (Acts 2:39). All that this means is that salvation is available to them and their descendants after them. Nothing is said of infants; none were brought to the apostles. We read of 3,000 adults repenting and being baptized (they conveniently omitted verses 38 and 41). Peter was speaking to those who could hear, understand, and obey\\not\not infants. Not one word in this passage (Acts 2:22-47) mentions the baptism of infants. Those who responded had to be able to hear Peter's message and respond to it (an ability which infants lack); then they had to be able to continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42)\\something else that infants cannot do. Citing a verse that totally ignores the context is dishonest. But it shows one thing: they do not have a verse that supports what their church does today.

The second verse offered as proof of infant baptism is Luke 18:16, where Jesus told His disciples to let "the little children" come unto him. They omitted verse 15, which would have strengthened their case, since the Greek word there is brephos, which is also used of babies still in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44). Jesus emphasized that those in the kingdom of heaven were like unto these infants\\pure and innocent. But these infants were not baptized. They were brought that Jesus might "touch" them. The parallel account in Matthew 19:13-14 says they were brought to Jesus "that He might put His hands on them and pray\\." Neither account, however, mentions any hint of infants being baptized. Nor does this event appear to have been used by the church as something to practice; no mention is made in the Book of Acts or any of the letters of it occurring again on the part of Jesus' followers.

The third reckless assertion is that infant baptism "goes back to the very first century when whole households were baptized" (Acts 16:33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). The only problem is that none of these examples state that there were any infants in any of these households. No one can authorize a doctrine or practice based on an assumption. For all we know the Philippian jailer had a wife and two teenage children. Who was counted as among his household\\their names, ages, or even how many they were\\are not mentioned. The same is true with Crispus and Stephanus. (Why did they omit Lydia and her household\\Acts 16:15?) The gospel is always preached to those who can hear and believe the message. Therefore, it is a bad assumption to make that infants, who cannot comprehend the gospel message, were included among those who were baptized.

The next statement is that one "is baptized toward faith rather than into faith." Apparently, this is their way of trying to get around the obvious fact that infants cannot believe. Notice that they provide no Scripture for this made-up bit of philosophy. In the New Testament, only those who have believed and repented of their sins were baptized. There is no such thing as being baptized "toward faith." Paul wrote to the Galatians: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (3:27-28). Being baptized "toward faith" is simply gibberish.

The only reasons cited for practicing infant baptism are that it is an expression that the child will be trained and nurtured "within the community of Faith." That is certainly a noble aim, but it can be done without the accompaniment of water. The other reason suggested is that it is a celebration "of God's prevenient grace." No one should bother trying to find the word prevenient in the Scriptures; it is not there. The point is that all of the things suggested in this section are the ideas and traditions of men; they are not to be found in the New Testament, and the few Scriptures cited have nothing but a very loose connection to what is being advocated. Yet after several centuries, these unconvincing arguments are the best that anyone can do.

Section III: Believers [sic] Baptism

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter preached the first gospel sermon, in which he explained that the multitude had crucified Jesus, the Son of God. When they asked what they should do, he answered that they should repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38), which 3,000 did (v. 41). The UMC does not cite this event or any other in the Book of Acts when explaining what the reason for baptism is. Acts is the Book of Conversions, yet they do not cite what occurred in a single one of those instances. They do not refer to Philip preaching to the Samaritans or the queen's treasurer in Acts 8, Saul's conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26), the household of Cornelius in Acts 10, Lydia's, or the jailer's (Acts 16). So what do they do?

They say that believers baptism illustrates Christ's death and resurrection, which is true (Col. 2:12). It might be stated a little more strongly by saying that we are buried with Him though baptism into His death (Rom. 6:3-5), but at least they are on the right track here. However, this is as close as they get to saying anything meaningful. They err when they say baptism illustrates new life as a Christian; baptism does not illustrate new life; it makes it available. When a person enters into the water, he is dead. Baptism is a burial. When he rises up, his sins are cleansed. Therefore, baptism does not illustrate new life; it provides new life.

Three other comments in the document are that baptism is "God's mystery, a "public testimony of faith," and "a sign of God's grace, poured out for us in Jesus Christ and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit." No Scriptures are offered to verify these points (because there are none). They obliquely refer to certain passages of Scripture, which do not apply the way this document suggests that they do.

IV: "Why Should I Be Baptized?"

Now we have arrived at the most important question that might be asked. Remarkably, they supply three answers with Scriptures, but they continue to ignore Acts 2 and any other conversion following afterward. One would think that even a cursory examination of this subject would include the Book of Acts, where baptism is mentioned most frequently, but they ignore the very book that explains why people were baptized. Their reasons are:

1. To follow the example of Jesus (Mark 1:9).
2. Because Christ commanded it (Matt. 28:18-20).
3. Obedience (1 John 2:3).

But where did Peter, Paul, or any other evangelist say that anyone should be baptized to follow the example of Jesus? Peter did not so preach on the Day of Pentecost. He told them to be baptized in order to have the forgiveness of their sins!

Ananias was sent to the penitent Saul of Tarsus. What did he tell him to do? Did he say, "You should be baptized now because Jesus was"? Did he declare to Saul the great commission given by Jesus, and then exhort him to be obedient? No. He said, "And now, why are you waiting? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Baptism was for the removal of one's sins, but the UMC never once mentions baptism in connection with sins being forgiven. Why? The answer is that they do not believe what the Scriptures teach about this genuine purpose for baptism; so they cite things out on the periphery. Yes, Jesus did set an example, and He did make it part of the great commission, but neither of these is the reason to be baptized. People obeyed the command in order to have their sins forgiven.

V and VI: Why Immersion?

The answer to the above question given in this document is: "It best symbolizes a Burial and Resurrection." It does not best do so; it is the only way that does so. Later, this document attempts to justify pouring and sprinkling. These two actions are not baptism in the first place, and in the second place they do not signify burial and resurrection at all! No one would associate the pouring or sprinkling of water with burial and resurrection because there is no connection to make. One can easily see that, when a person is immersed, he is buried and raised up (Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 8:38-39). It is noteworthy that not a single Scripture is cited in this section.

The document does provide quotes from three Reformers, which are interesting because their followers do not generally immerse people.

Martin Luther: "I would have those who are to be baptized to be entirely immersed, as the word imports and the mystery signifies."

John Calvin: "The word baptize signifies "to immerse." It is certain the immersion was the practice of the first church."

John Wesley: "Buried with him alludes to baptizing by immersion according to the custom of the first church."

Unfortunately, no source is cited so that we might know the origin of these comments. But Luther and Calvin were correct: the Greek work baptize, does mean "to immerse." Greek lexicons define the word properly. Calvin and Wesley are correct that this was the practice of the early church. All who wanted to be saved from their sins were immersed.

VII: Why Baptism by Pouring?

After the last section, that is a good question; the answer is disappointing: "It is one of the primary ways by which people were baptized in the early church." The only thing this claim lacks is proof. Where is the word pouring used in connection with baptism? It never is! This is simply not true. Apparently, whoever put this document together forgot that in the last section Calvin and Wesley said that immersion was the practice of the early church. Pouring was not.

VIII: Why Baptism by Sprinkling?

Again, ignoring what Luther and Calvin said about the definition of baptism being "immersion," the writers of this document say:

The quantity of water used is not material, no more that [sic] the quantity of bread and wine [it is never called wine in the NT, GWS] in the Lord's Supper. Water is used in baptism because it symbolizes our sins being washed away by our faith in Jesus Christ. It does not wash away sins.

The quantity of water used does not matter if this statement is referring to an ocean, lake, river, or baptistery. But baptism still means "immersion," while sprinkling and pouring do not. Who takes it upon themselves to say that something less than immersion can be called baptism? No man has that authority. One might as well tell Naaman that there is nothing magical about the number seven and that if he would just dip once in the Jordan, that would be sufficient. In fact, the river cannot matter, either; any river would do. Is that obedience? Neither are sprinkling or pouring.

Of course, immersion does no good, either\\unless it is for the purpose of having one's sins removed. Baptism does wash away sins and cleanse the sinner (1 Peter 3:21). It is during baptism that the blood of Christ washes away our sins (compare Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). No Scripture says that it is merely symbolic, as section IX declares. None of the Scriptures cited (although related to the subject) refer to baptism as a mere symbol.

In Section X, the document actually gets around to quoting Scriptures from Acts (2:41; 8:12-13). However, they are not cited to show the essentiality of baptism\\only that people who believed the gospel were baptized. The document has already undermined the purpose and mode of baptism.

Section XI: Do I Need to be Re-Baptized?

The initial answer is: "Not at all! Baptism only needs to be done once." Have the writers of this document never read Acts 19:1-5? When these twelve men understood they had not been baptized properly, they were baptized again\\for the right reason. If one had water sprinkled or poured on him, he was not baptized, period. If he was immersed but only to follow Jesus' example or obey His command, he has not been baptized properly yet. The reason must be to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and it is clear that the United Methodist Church does not teach or believe that truth. All of those in the Book of Acts knew precisely why they were being baptized. They knew they were lost, and they wanted to be saved.