Protests Against Baptism (From Within?)
Brother Joe Leon showed your congenial editor the Crosswalk.com website whose material on the topic of baptism was refuted the past four weeks (November 21, 28, December 5, 12, 2021). He was even more flabbergasted about what he found on a local website from a religious group calling itself the Kensington Church. On their website they are listed as Kensington Church – Church of Christ. But “church of Christ” did not surface anywhere else—particularly throughout the three pages labeled Baptism 101.
This group apparently started in Troy, Michigan; they seem to have five other groups there in addition to the “campus” here in Orlando. They do not explain from where the name Kensington originates on their website. Everyone can be fairly sure that it is not another name for Jesus.
Whatever they might or might not be, they are in no way a church of Christ. One glance at their website shows them engaging in worship with instruments of music which the New Testament does not authorize. But even without that hint, they employ the same arguments against baptism as most Baptists and non-denominational groups do.
In answering, “What Is Baptism?” they assert it is a wedding ring, although the Bible never makes such a comparison, and no one can onserve “baptism” on a Christian like a wedding ring on a finger. “Baptism is an outward symbol of the inward reality that you are a ‘believer in’ and ‘follower of’ Jesus Christ.” So, what verse teaches this doctrine? No passage of Scripture even remotely hints that baptism is an outward symbol. However, notice this proclamation:
Being baptized is not how a person becomes a Christian—you became a Christian the moment you place your faith in Jesus Christ. If you do not get baptized, you are still a Christian because your salvation does not depend on works (see Ephesians 2:8-9).
If these words are true, why did Peter not say them to the multitude on Pentecost when they asked what they should do? Why did he not say, “Repent and be baptized, but being baptized will not make you a Christian”? He did not say such a silly thing, first, because it is not true, and second, they would have been confused. Why tell them to do two things in order to be saved if those two actions don’t save anyone? Then he could have added, “In fact, you’re already Christians, even though you didn’t know it. Yes, that’s right. The minute you believed my sermon you were saved by faith.” Of course, Ephesians 2:8-9 is not an account of conversion. If no one is saved by works of any kind), that eliminates faith because Jesus defined faith as “the work of God” (John 6:29). Baptism also involves the working of God—to remove sins (Col. 2:12).
Kensington’s theology is wrong. Baptism is involved in a person becoming a Christian. It is that point in time in which the blood of Jesus washes away a person’s sins (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). It is not a work man does; it is a work God does. Those who are not baptized are not Christians. The next two sections of Baptism 101 discuss when a person should be baptized and why it is important, but their words are hollow because they have already insisted that a person can be a Christian without it.
They make the same argument on 1 Corinthians 1:17 as the Crosswalk folks did, taking Paul’s statement out of context. They argue rather ambiguously: “If there was even a remote possibility that you needed to get baptized to get your sins forgiven, Paul would have done it just to be safe. But he did not.” He did not what—baptize others or be himself baptized? Paul did baptize others; Kensington admitted he baptized “a few people.” Do they not think Paul was baptized? Acts 9:18 declares that he was. So, what do they mean? Incidentally, Peter never said, “Repent and get baptized.” Why do they keep replacing be with get?
Baptism and Heaven
The next question in Kensington’s 101 is: “If I’m Not Baptized, Can I Still Go To Heaven?” Would most people be surprised if they answered, “No”? The reader is safe from shock on this one. Of course, they answer, “Yes.” Earlier they insisted: “Baptism is a BIG DEAL!” Apparently, it is not a big enough deal to keep anyone out of heaven. They also claimed it was important because Jesus included it in Matthew 28:18-20. But it seems not to be so important that anyone actually do it—not if people can get to heaven without it.
Not surprisingly, they offer as proof the thief on the cross. They claim that he was saved without being baptized. How do they know that? Had the thief lived in Jerusalem or Judea? “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him [John, gws], and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:5-6). How does Kensington know that the thief had not been among those whom John baptized? Such is guesswork—not Scripture. However, they have a worse problem.
The rationale they use is: “Baptism was not necessary for the thief to get to heaven, and it’s not necessary for you to get to heaven either.” They fail totally to distinguish the Law of Moses from the New Testament of Christ. Under the Law; baptism was not a requirement for salvation. Only toward the end of this age, people could choose to be baptized when John came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. However, it was never a command of Moses. The thief did not live during the gospel age; he was not required to be baptized.
But listen to the logic that is used. Since the thief was not baptized, everyone can be saved and go to heaven without it. Let’s continue that line of thinking. Since the thief never partook of the Lord’s Supper, we can all abstain from the Lord’s Supper and still go to heaven. Since the thief did not assemble with the saints every week (Heb. 10:25), we don’t need to, either. Since the thief was never part of the body of Christ, the one church, and he went to heaven, no one today needs to be part of the church, either.
The thief lived and died under the Law of Moses, which is the reason he was not required to do any of these things. These things are all part of the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25), and they were not yet in effect. People today, however, have been born under the New Testament of Christ, and we have the responsibility to do all of these things. Kensington does not know how to rightly divide the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15).
How to Baptize
The last question of significance is: “How does Kensington Baptize Believers? They go to great lengths to establish that baptism is by immersion. They point out that baptidzo means “to dip or immerse.” They even claim that 2,000 years ago baptidzo was used to die a cloth “from white to purple.” The cloth was fully immersed or baptized. Does this definition and example, therefore, mean that Kensington baptizes by immersion? One would think so, but one would be wrong.
As they introduce the topic, they mention that people baptize in different ways: “Some sprinkle water onto people. Others pour it over a person’s head. These are great ways to be baptize!” Does this claim make sense to anybody? The word baptidzo means to immerse, but sprinkling and pouring are great ways to baptize? No, sprinkling and pouring are unauthorized ways to baptize. This would be akin to saying that God authorized males to be leaders in the home and in the church (Eph. 5:22-25; 1 Tim. 2:11-14), but women make great leaders there, too! Hmm.
Under the Law of Moses, someone might say, “Yes, God appointed the Levites to be priests, but men from other tribes would make great priests, also.” Oh, that’s right; Jeroboam did that very thing (1 Kings 12:25-33), and Israel was taken captive as a result of his various unauthorized actions. Again, we can imagine Kensington arguing, “In the Lord’s Supper, unleavened bread and the juice of the grape were used, but pizza and Coke make great communion emblems, also.”
If baptidzo means “to immerse,” then by whose authority can we substitute something that does not define the word? A football has precise dimensions, shape, and inflation specifications. If someone brings in a basketball and calls it a football, is it? It’s inflated, and it’s a ball; surely no one would forbid its use just because the size and shape are a little different? No, if a definition has a meaning, it cannot be arbitrarily altered just to suit someone’s fancy.
After giving the correct definition of baptism, Kensington says that “baptism by immersion seems to best capture the meaning of the word and appears to be depicted in the New Testament.” Why all the hesitancy to stick with the truth? Why the backpaddling with seems and appears? This is not up for grabs. If it’s the truth, then why not stand behind it? If it isn’t true, then why bring it up at all? Just say all three are acceptable. It would be difficult to be more wishy-washy than these people are. But, wait! They surpass themselves.
After citing Philip and the eunuch going down into the water so that the evangelist could baptize him, Kensington writes: “And yet, we need to acknowledge that in the early 2nd century, only one generation removed from the original apostles, there is evidence that Christians were baptized by ways other than immersion.” First of all, why do we need to acknowledge that? It’s irrelevant. Second, one generation removed is one too many. The question must be, “Where in the first generation of Peter and Paul did anyone sprinkle or pour water on another?”
The answer is that such an action cannot be found. Those substitutions for baptism could be 20 years later, 200 years later, or 2,000 years later; it makes no difference. They still do not constitute baptism. Does the New Testament define baptism any other way? No. Is there an example of someone being baptized any other way? No. Does any Scripture imply some other mode of baptism than immersion? No. Well, then, no authority exists for doing anything else (Col. 3:17).
Kensington insists that they baptize by immersion—except when they choose not to. If someone has a broken leg, they will “baptize” the unfortunate fellow by sprinkling water on him. Why? This writer knows of a paralyzed person who was baptized with one person on each corner of a stretcher. Kensington uses sprinkling if someone has water phobia or an inner ear condition. This writer’s mother had both but cheerfully submitted to immersion. He has also seen a teenager with spina bifida pull himself by his arms upstairs to the baptistery in order to be immersed. If a person balks at being immersed, how much faith does he have?
And what good will sprinkling such a person do? Either the Bible tells us the way a person should be baptized, or it does not. If it does explain that it is by immersion, then why would anyone settle for a cheap substitute? Do they really believe immersion is valid? Obviously, they do not if they are willing to throw it overboard for a manmade mode.
This section closes with the following sentence: “God doesn’t care about the amount of water used. Instead, he [sic] cares about your heart.” Apparently, Kensington is so close to God that they know what He thinks. Not only do they know God’s inmost thoughts, they know— despite God not saying anything about it in His Word. Wow! Nadab and Abihu were confident that God would accept fire He did not authorize. How did that work out (Lev. 10:1-2)? When God gives commandments, the only thing man needs to do is keep them.