Protests Against Baptism
The teaching of the New Testament is clear concerning the role that baptism plays in salvation; all a person needs to do is read the Book of Acts to learn that a person has sins before being baptized, but afterward they have been washed away. Some, however, have determined that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, and they cannot be described as bashful concerning those views. Today, they put those views on the Internet; therefore, we will examine a few efforts to discount what the Scriptures describe as being baptized in order to have sins forgiven (Acts 2:38).
One of those is Crosswalk.com, which has millions of viewers. Its editorial staff put together the information on baptism that will be examined and refuted. Their first question is: "What is Baptism?" Consider their very first paragraph of explanation.
Baptism is the outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which those who believe in him [sic] can be forever reconciled to God. The purpose of baptism is to give visual testimony of our commitment to Christ. It is the first step of discipleship (Acts 8:26-39).
As with most error, the editors included some truth along with it. The truth portion is that Jesus is God incarnate, and He came to reconcile us to God. The error is everything they claimed about baptism. The reader should ask himself, "What Scripture defines baptism as 'the outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon'?" The answer is that there isn't one, which is the reason they do not cite or quote a Scripture. One would think that someone defining a term might consider where it first appears and what it means there. Afterward, one should see the way it is used elsewhere in the New Testament. So, where does the word baptism first appear?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record baptism first in connection with John the Baptizer. Matthew records that people came to him confessing their sins, and John baptized them (Matt. 3:6). Mark records that "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (1:4). Mark adds in the next verse that they were "all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Luke likewise records that John went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Luke 3:3).
Now, consider the definition of baptism from Crosswalk.com; it does not fit what we find in the opening of the gospel accounts. The Bible does not define it as an outward act that symbolizes an inward phenomenon of accepting who Jesus is. It was not a visual testimony of commitment to Christ. Why not start there?
The answer is that they would need to acknowledge that baptism had a purpose, which was to remove sins. Notice that Matthew and Mark record that the people confessed their sins, which indicates they were repenting of them. Mark and Luke affirm that they were baptized—not as an outward show of anything, but to obtain the forgiveness of their sins. The preposition translated "for" shows direction. They were baptized, in other words, to obtain (for the purpose of receiving) the forgiveness of sins. Occasionally, someone insists that for means "because of." Try that definition in the text, and see how it works out. People came out to John to be baptized because they already had forgiveness? Really? The reader needs to know that the same Greek construction (for the remission of sins) is used in Acts 2:38 as in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3.
If anyone wants to attempt to minimize the baptism of John, he should consider the question Jesus asked of the Sadducees in Matthew 21:25: "The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?" And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?'" But John's baptism was from heaven; it was authorized by God (John 1:33). And its purpose was "for the remission of sins."
Changing the Purpose
The Crosswalk editors' definition of baptism does not fit what John did, nor does it fit what the apostles later taught, either. Everyone knows that the Apostle Peter preached the gospel first on the Day of Pentecost. He convinced many of those present that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that He was raised from the dead. They were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Crosswalk's answer in Acts 2:38 would have been:
Repent and be baptized as an outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which you believers can be forever reconciled to God.
The crowd would have very likely said: "What?" or "What means this gibberish?" But if for some reason they understood these words at this time, Luke could have written for Acts 2:41: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized as an outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which believers can be forever reconciled to God." Everyone ought to consider how absurd this definition of baptism actually is. Peter never mentions baptism as an outward act or a symbol. Neither does Luke. Which brings up a valid point. Who authorized this definition? Not the Scriptures.
Substituting this manmade, contrived definition of baptism in various locations comes across as ludicrous. Philip preached in Samaria and received a favorable response (Acts 8:5-13). He taught things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ; both men and women were baptized "as an outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which believers can be forever reconciled to God." Not.
In Acts 10:48, Peter should have said to Cornelius and those with him: "Can anyone forbid baptism 'as an outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which believers can be forever reconciled to God?'"
Let's not forget what Ananias should have said to Saul of Tarsus: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized 'as an outward act that symbolizes the inward phenomenon of coming to and accepting Jesus Christ as real, as God incarnate, as the sacrificial means by which believers can be forever reconciled to God.'" No, the verse links baptism to the forgiveness of sins: "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).
Not only is the "baptism is an outward symbol of what has occurred inwardly" notion not mentioned in these verses; it is not so defined anywhere in the entire New Testament. So, again, who authorized this definition? Others have written similarly (and more succinctly), "Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace," but that definition does not come from God, nor is it found in His Word. If the opponents of baptism's role in salvation could find a passage saying these words, they would give the chapter and verse where it can be found; they cannot do it because it does not exist. It is a theological assumption—not a Biblical fact!
Acts 8:26-39
"Are you forgetting that the editors of Crosswalk cited Acts 8:26-39?" No, but which of those verses substantiates their claim? Which one validates their definition and purpose of baptism? None of them does. They further define the purpose of baptism: it "is to give visual testimony of our commitment to Christ." To whom was the queen's treasurer giving this visual testimony? Philip? Why would he need it? The eunuch had already made a confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God (v. 37). He had already made up his mind to be baptized even before the confession. That means he was willing to offer a visual testimony before the verbal confession. Confusing, isn't it?
Ananias should have said to Saul: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and give visual testimony of your commitment to Christ" (Acts 22:16). The fact is that baptism is for the purpose of washing sins away. This is what the Bible teaches.
The First Step
The first paragraph of Crosswalk's position on baptism concludes by saying that baptism "is the first step of discipleship" (Acts 8:26-39). Acts 8:26-39 does not make this claim. Neither does any other verse in the New Testament. "But it's the first thing the Ethiopian eunuch did after he confessed Christ." Yes, it is, but the text does not say it was the first step of discipleship. It was, instead, the means of his being saved, according to the consistent definition and purpose of baptism. The reader will note that it was after his baptism that he went on his way rejoicing. Why? Because that is the point at which he was saved!
Those who discount baptism as irrelevant to salvation need a text that says the following. 1) Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch. 2) The eunuch said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 3) Philip and the eunuch rejoiced in his salvation. 4) Philip said, "Now that you believe and are saved, you should be baptized as an outward sign of your inward salvation and as a visual testimony of it. And as the first step of your being a disciple, you should be baptized. 5) The eunuch answered, "Okay," and Philip baptized him. This is what these folks believe, but it is not the way the text presents itself.
Do they really believe baptism is the first step of discipleship? Then why do they wait days, and weeks, and months to baptize these "new converts"? If it is the first step, they ought to be baptized immediately, as all were in the New Testament. Some groups may, but not all do. Their baptisteries may be empty of water for six months at a time. Then they fill it and baptize a number of people. Afterward, they may drain it for another six months.
Crosswalk made three assertions about baptism—the outward confession, the visual testimony, and the first step regarding discipleship. The Scriptures provide no authority for any of these three points. Furthermore, they ignore baptism's relationship to the forgiveness of sins, though that was its purpose from the beginning.
Adding Overlooked
One thing is certain; the Crosswalk people did not have the same heart and mind that the 3,000 did on Pentecost. "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…" (Acts 2:41). They did not do so as an outward sign, a visual testimony, or to begin being a disciple; they did so in order to have the forgiveness of sins. Crosswalk's editors deny what the Scriptures teach. Later, they declare: "Baptism is not a requirement of salvation." John baptized for the forgiveness of sin; so did the apostles. Crosswalk cannot be trusted.
Incidentally, those 3,000 who were baptized were added to the small group of believers (Acts 2:41). Those who were baptized (being saved) after the Day of Pentecost were also added to the church (Acts 2:47). When sins are washed away, the new person is also justified and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11)—and fit for the kingdom.