Exceptions to Baptism (Part 2)
The first assault on Scriptural baptism by liberals is to remove from its purpose the forgiveness of sins. The second attack is to say that, yes, immersion is required but God makes exceptions to His command. In essence, this approach to salvation would have Jesus say: “He who believes and is immersed shall be saved—except for all of the exceptions I will make” (Mark 16:16). Peter should have said, “Repent, and let every one of you (except for those I save some other way) be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins…” (Acts 2:38).
One wonders what other commands have exceptions to them. How about practicing sorcery (Gal. 5:20)? Sure, it’s forbidden, but maybe God will make an exception. How about committing fornication? Can there be exceptions to that command? No. It must be repented of, and the practice must cease. Where does the idea come from that God can save people who are not baptized for the forgiveness of their sins?
Justification
Dr. Harrington asserts the thing that shows salvation is the Holy Spirit dwelling within a Christian, and he cites Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13-14, and Acts 19:1-6. He adds that the Holy Spirit is promised in Acts 2:38. Wait a minute! If the Holy Spirit is promised to those who are baptized, but God saves people without baptism, then when do they get the Holy Spirit? Hmm.
In the first place, Peter did not promise the Holy Spirit to those who were baptized; he promised “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” At least three interpretations exist to explain this phrase. One is that Peter is referring to a non-miraculous indwelling. The text of Acts 2 does not seem to support this idea.
Second, in light of what the multitude had observed that day—cloven tongues like as of fire sitting upon the apostles and their speaking in tongues afterward, some claim that it is a miraculous gift that the Christian receives. This gift could be received either directly from God, as in the case of the apostles and Cornelius—or it might be imparted by the laying on of hands, as with the Samaritans in Acts 8.
Third, it could refer to salvation itself, since the proclamation of the gospel came through the Holy Spirit, and the very next verse says that “the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). To what promise is Peter referring if it is not the one concerning salvation?
These views all have their strengths and weaknesses, but they point out one truth. We must look at the context to determine what the “Holy Spirit” is referring to at any given time. In Romans 8, the Spirit of Christ dwells within the Christian, but nothing indicates that a miraculous gift is involved. In fact, Paul wanted to travel to Rome to impart spiritual gifts to them (Rom. 1:11). Paul is talking about the way Christians walk and live according to the teachings of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1-9).
In Ephesians 1:13-14, Paul could be using the Holy Spirit figuratively. If what he writes is literal, it also makes sense because Paul founded the congregation there and imparted spiritual gifts through the laying on of hands. Acts 19:1-6 refers to the first time Paul laid hands on 12 Ephesian men who were then able to speak in tongues and prophesy (Acts 19:1-6).
Exceptional Situations
Two exceptional situations are cited where the normative did not occur. The first involves the Samaritans. When one looks at their conversion, it is difficult to find anything abnormative. Philip went to Samaria and “preached Christ to them” (Acts 8:5). They listened to Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles he did (v. 6). Furthermore, we read:
But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized (v. 12).
Doesn’t seem abnormative, does it? The truth concerning Jesus was preached, and people were baptized—presumably for the same reason as given on Pentecost—for the remission of their sins. Oh, but they didn’t automatically receive the Holy Spirit. The apostles (who were in Jerusalem) heard they had received the Word of God and sent Peter and John to them in order to lay hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (v. 14). When they did so, they received the Holy Spirit (apparently demonstrating it by speaking in tongues or prophesying), and Simon who observed what happened wanted to buy the power that Peter and John had (v. 18). However, the salvation of the Samaritans was not delayed—only the ability to exercise a miraculous gift afterward was delayed. In Acts 19:6, Paul repeated the same pattern. He baptized the Ephesians and afterward imparted a spiritual gift to them. This event has nothing to do with God making an exception to His Word.
Now, the other example cited is a little more complicated. It involves Cornelius and those with him to whom Peter preached the gospel. But if one considers the text and what occurred, he will discern that, although something is indeed different, there is nothing abnormative as it pertains to salvation. What sets apart this conversion from all others is that this is the first time the gospel is preached to Gentiles. Jews considered Gentiles as dogs and would not have anything to do with them—physically or spiritually.
Cornelius and Those With Him
God convinced Peter to go to the house of a Gentile in order to preach the gospel to him. He saw a vision of something like a sheet that came down from heaven. God told him: “Rise, Peter, kill and eat” (Acts 10:13-16). Peter balked, but God told him nothing was common or unclean any longer. He understood this to mean that he should go to Cornelius’ house. When Peter later returned to Jerusalem, he was criticized for going to the house of a Gentile. He overcame their accusations by recounting his vision—and the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit.
So, let’s take a look at what was involved in that occurrence. After various preliminaries, Peter began to speak, affirming first of all, that “God shows no partiality. But that in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). Does that mean Cornelius was already saved? No. Cornelius had sent for Peter to come to his house, who would tell him “words” by which he and his household could be saved (11:14). Peter had not spoken such words yet. All that is meant is that Cornelius is accepted by God to hear the gospel.
In Acts 10:36-43, Peter begins to speak of Jesus. While he was still speaking, “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” (v. 44). The Jewish Christians who came with Peter were astonished “because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (10:45b-46).
Did their receiving of this miraculous gift mean they were saved? Is this an exception to God’s normative means of saving people? No. “But,” liberals protest, “the same phraseology is used that is in Acts 2:38—‘the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” It is. However, the context must determine the meaning. If we require “the gift” to have the same meaning in the only two times it is used in the New Testament (and it must have the identical meaning on both occasions), then the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 must be a miraculous gift, also.
“The main problem with that assertion is that nowhere following Acts 2:38, until the time of Stephen (Acts 6:8), did anyone except the apostles seem to possess miraculous gifts.” And, if the gift in Acts 2:38 is miraculous, why aren’t Christians receiving them today? And why did the apostles need to lay hands on people to impart them? Those in Samaria should have received them directly, as well as the Ephesians in Acts 19:6. Why did Paul lay his hands on them?
“But Peter says God gave to Cornelius and those with him the same gift as He gave the apostles (11:17).” He did. They received it directly from heaven—and not through the laying on of hands. “Well, that proves they were saved without being baptized.” No, it proves that God gave them the Holy Spirit before they were baptized instead of afterward. This action proved to Jewish Christians that Gentiles were worthy to receive the gospel.
Remember that Acts 11:14 says Cornelius would be saved by words—not the Holy Spirit. And Peter had only begun to speak when the Holy Spirit intervened (11:15). Thus, Peter concludes: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47). When Peter explained this event to those in Jerusalem, his critics “became silent.” Everyone concluded that God had granted repentance to life to the Gentiles (11:17-18).
In this way, God solved the problem of how to get the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentile Christians. He gave them a miraculous gift of the Spirit. If they were good enough to receive the Holy Spirit, they were good enough to receive the gospel and be Christians. Neither the conversion of the Samaritans nor that of Cornelius is an exception to God’s plan of salvation which involves baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
One further question might be asked: “If Cornelius and those with him were saved before baptism, then why did Peter command them to be baptized? If this occasion was to be an exception, then let it stand as one. Since they were allegedly already saved, then baptism is not necessary. Why didn’t Peter say, “These do not need to be baptized, and this account of conversion will stand forever to make the point that God makes exceptions to the need for baptism”?.
What God is Bound By
Dr. Harrington said there was a saying in the Christian Church: “God is not bound by baptism, but we are bound to uphold it as our norm.” It may be common in the Christian Church, but it does not appear in the Divine Word of God. First, “Who said (and can prove) that God is not bound by His own Word?” What verse, what incident, what teaching can be found to substantiate this notion? Second, if we grant exceptions as our norm, then how many exceptions can there be to this new norm? Third, how many exceptions can there be—5, 100, 1000?
If Martin Luther is an exception, then what about all his followers? Is Mother Teresa an exception? How many other Catholics are exceptions? What about John Wesley and the Methodists? It looks as though there are so many exceptions that there’s no rule left. What started out as normative has now become negligible.
People can appear to be displaying the fruit of the Spirit when they follow the teachings of the New Testament, but when they proclaim the wrong plan of salvation, they are not following God’s will, and they are causing people to be lost. When they give someone “a sinner’s prayer” to say and teach them that they are saved by “faith only,” they are not filled with God’s Holy Spirit. They may serve mankind, help people in their poverty, and console the downtrodden, but do they bring them to salvation and a crown of life? Certainly, they cannot do so with a false gospel, which is the reason Paul so vigorously spoke against one (Gal. 1:6-9). Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Him—and His plan of salvation.