Protests Against Baptism (Part 4)

We have been examining the website of Crosswalk.com that deals with the topic: "Baptism: What Is It? Its Meaning and Definition." In their first section, "What Is Baptism?" the section was written by John Shore, who never bothered to provide a Biblical definition of the word, but began immediately quoting a manmade perspective of the subject that was totally off base and insupportable (see Part 1 from November 21, 2021).

The second category seeks to answer, "Do You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?" One would scarcely expect John MacArthur, who wrote this section, to answer, "Yes." He employs the usual technique of quoting from doctrinal sections of the epistles while ignoring the actual accounts of conversion that Luke records in the Book of Acts. When he finally notices Acts 2:38, he argues that "repent and be baptized" means that "baptism is not required...." How's that for twisted thinking?

One wonders what will be presented in the third section, "Infant Baptism vs Adult Baptism." This portion is written by Dr. Roger Barrier, who does not believe in sprinkling as baptism; he makes a good case for immersion. However, notice the denigration of baptism he makes at the outset when he writes: "Let's take a look at how infant baptism began and why it's important for adults to take the symbolic step of baptism." What Scripture calls baptism a "symbolic step"? Imagine Ananias telling Saul of Tarsus, "Arise and take the symbolic step of being baptized" (Acts 22:16). The denominational world has minimized baptism so long they do not even realize how goofy they sound.

Barrier correctly states that, during the second and third centuries, infant baptism began to be practiced because in those days the infant mortality rate was high. Since they actually believed that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins, they made certain that babies were immersed; they didn't want them to die and not have their sins removed. Eventually sprinkling became practiced rather than immersing the infant in water.

While they were correct that baptism is for the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), they apparently overlooked the fact that, before being baptized, one must first have faith (Mark 16:16). One must also repent first (Acts 2:38). He must also articulate the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 8:37-38). Infants have no ability to believe, repent, or make the appropriate confession. So, what good does it do to baptize them?

Second, babies have no sins, either. Again, why baptize them to remove sins they don't have? Third, by whose authority was baptism changed to sprinkling? Nothing in the New Testament authorizes such a practice. Man did so by authority he does not possess.

The website correctly points out that the Greek word baptidzo means "to immerse"\not "to sprinkle" or "to pour." Therefore, calling those actions baptism is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Any reliable Greek lexicon will provide the definition of baptism as "immersion." Even if a person had no access to a Greek lexicon, he could still know what baptism is by what the Scriptures teach.

Usually, John baptized in the Jordan River, which always had an ample supply of water. Occasionally, he was elsewhere, such as in Aenon near Salim, "because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized" (John 3:23). When Philip baptized the eunuch from Ethiopia, "both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). Verse 39 states that they then "came up out of the water." No one needs much water to sprinkle or pour; neither do people go down into the water if only a few drops will be sprinkled on someone.

Romans 6:1-10

A third argument in favor of immersion is the passage Paul writes in Romans 6. Barrier acknowledges: "As we are dipped under water, we illustrate the burial of Christ. As we come out of the water, we demonstrate the resurrection of Christ." He later quotes that "we are raised to walk in a new life." So, is it being raised up that corresponds to the resurrection or leaving the water? This may seem like a minor point, but why not just say it the way the Scriptures do?

Barrier's thesis is that baptism pictures that which has already occurred: "Baptism is a personal testimony to us of the washing away of our sins. As we go under the water, we reconfirm that our sins are forgiven...." No! This is not correct. Baptism is the point at which sins are washed away. We are not illustrating what has already occurred; we are being saved by the blood of Christ when we are baptized (compare Revelation 1:5 with Acts 22:16). Notice how Barrier does not quote the passage but instead inserts his own interpretation of it\that it is just a symbol.

When he finally does get around to quoting a portion of the text, it is only to show that baptism is the means by which we identify with Christ\"For we are buried with Christ in baptism...." But even then he does not quote the verse accurately (he may be using a very loose translation).

He is correct in saying that faith must first precede baptism (thus invalidating infant "baptism"); the New Testament teaches that truth. But it does not teach that "baptism is your testimony of surrendering your life to Christ." What Scripture teaches that doctrine? None! Baptism is not a testimony of salvation; it is the means by which people are saved.

Jesus' Baptism

The fourth topic is Jesus' Baptism; perhaps the reader is thinking, "Well, this would be pretty difficult to mess up." One reason Joel Stucki succeeds so well with this material is that he actually quotes the passage and inserts very little commentary, thus breaking with the precedent set forth by the other writers. Yes, John protested that he had need to be baptized by Jesus, but the Lord told him He needed to "fulfill all righteousness."

Of course, Stucki cannot resist taking a shot at the concept of baptism being for the remission of sins. In his second paragraph, he asks: "If John was baptizing for repentance and Jesus was without sin, why would he [sic] have to be baptized?" Whoops! The writer made a blunder here. He actually admitted that John was baptizing "for repentance," as Mark 1:4 teaches (although he did not cite the verse). Notice that (for once on this website) he did not claim John was using baptism as a symbol. John was actually baptizing people for repentance\that is, for the forgiveness of their sins.

Now, everyone knows that Jesus had no sins (1 Peter 2:22). Therefore, He did not need to repent and be baptized to have them forgiven. But the reader need not worry; this attack of honesty will soon be overcome by the writer. He says that Jesus' answer "was not a statement that baptism is necessary for salvation, nor that he [sic] needed to repent of anything." Jesus' answer does address John's question about baptizing Jesus. John recognized that Jesus had no reason to respond to John's preaching. He had no sins to repent of, and thus when John baptized Jesus, no sins would be washed away. This is precisely the reason for John's question.

In His reply, Jesus does not comment on the purpose and design of baptism for others; He comments on the reason He has chosen to be baptized\He wants to "fulfill all righteousness." Although Jesus was exempt from what John was preaching\that is, He had no sins to be forgiven in baptism\nevertheless, He deemed it necessary to fulfill this requirement, just as everyone else did. We actually have another instance in which Jesus did the same thing, and Matthew records it.

In Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus and the disciples are in Capernaum (probably for the last time). Those who received the temple tax approached Peter and asked him if his Teacher paid the temple tax. Peter answered, "Yes." The text indicates he planned to ask Jesus about it, but the Lord spoke first. "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" Peter rightly answered, "From strangers." Jesus pointed out that, in that case, the sons are free from the tax. Jesus, therefore, did not need to pay it since His Father was King. But Jesus paid it anyway lest he offend anyone.

The same is true in Matthew 3. Jesus had no sins and therefore did not need to be baptized, but it was a requirement of others; therefore, Jesus submitted to the teaching\even though He had no sins to wash away and would therefore have been exempt. By being immersed, He fulfilled all righteousness\all of the righteous commands God required. He later asked the question: "The baptism of John\where was it from? From heaven or from men?" (Matt. 21:25). The chief priests and the elders knew that the multitude regarded John as a prophet. If they answered that his baptism was from men, they would be in disfavor with the people. If they admitted his baptism was authorized by God, Jesus could ask them, "Why didn't you obey Him?"

If Jesus Himself was not baptized, the crowd could ask Him the same thing. What would He say\"I didn't need to be baptized because I'm perfect?" That wouldn't go over well (even though true). Besides, He also taught baptism for the remission of sins. How would it look for Him to have exempted Himself from a command He required of others? This website already teaches that baptism is not a requirement for salvation; imagine how much easier for the writers here to denigrate baptism if Jesus Himself had not obeyed John's message from Heaven! They would be saying, "If baptism were really that important, if it were really necessary, then Jesus would have been baptized." They can't do that, however; so, they try to reduce it to a mere symbol.

Scriptures on Baptism

The fifth topic related to baptism on the Crosswalk website is titled, "Scriptures on Baptism." Crosswalk quotes four without making any comments. This is the best section of the five. The first of these, 1 Peter 3:21, begins, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also...." Notice that it is the Flood of Noah's day that symbolizes baptism (read 1 Peter 3:20). Baptism is not said to symbolize anything. It saves us (when preceded by faith, repentance, and confession).

None of these four passages were cited previously in this document. The second is Colossians 2:12, which reveals that baptism is not a manmade work but "the working of God," Who raised Jesus from the dead." It is truly a surprise (a good one) that Crosswalk included this verse, since most who object to baptism try to portray it as a work of merit.

The third passage is Ephesians 4:4-6, which states unequivocally there is one baptism and one body (or church, as in Eph. 1:22-23). Many today try to say that the one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism, but this website only deals with water baptism. Should they claim Holy Spirit baptism is in use today, they have a conflict.

Acts 22:16 is the fourth verse: "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord." Notice there is no symbolism here, no alleged testimonial proclamation. Acts 22:16 just supplies the facts\baptism washes away a person's sins.