Home

Spiritual Health

Physical Health

Marriage and Divorce

Quotations Regarding Health

Objections to Baptism Refuted

Our Lord prayed for unity so that the world might believe (John 17:20-21). Yet disciples are divided over the answer to one of the most important questions one could ever ask - "What must I do to be saved?"

The overwhelming majority of professed Christians believe baptism is not a requirement to be saved and some insist that it is not even important. Dissention over such an important matter causes many to wonder if the Bible is intelligible. Unbelievers certainly are not impressed with such confusion and Bible students should seek the truth with all diligence, knowing that God is "not the author of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33).

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). He was talking about freedom from bondage - the bondage of sin. Bondage to sin is a grievous bondage, yet freedom from its guilt is the greatest liberty.

Before we begin to deal with objections to baptism, we must make it clear that the case for baptism being essential is not a weak one in any way. In fact, on the very day the Lord's church was established (AD 33, in Jerusalem; Acts 2) people who heard the message about Jesus Christ - who He is, what He did for them, and what the Jews did to Him - asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). The message on that day, in relation to baptism, was understood by all. There were no objections to what they were told to do. They "gladly received His word" and obeyed (Acts 2:41). Three thousand of those present on that day believed - they were BELIEVERS. Yet they wanted to know how to get rid of the guilt of their sins. They were not told to believe, and certainly not to "believe only," because they already believed, which is evident from their question. They were told to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

Now, with such a clear and forthright answer, those who look to the Bible for authority must wonder WHY many teach that baptism is not essential. It is indeed puzzling but let me bring to your attention the fact that Jesus told His disciples that "narrow is the way that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). He then immediately warned them about false teachers, saying, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). Could it be that false prophets (teachers) are the reason that few find the "life" Jesus was talking about? The apostle Paul said, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Certainly, the Lord knew His plan for people to be saved would be perverted by the teaching that faith only saves, and thus continued:

Matt. 7:21 Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The Lord's statement here indicates that many people, even men who thought they had done "many wonderful works" for the Lord, and who, in a sense, believed in Him, but were never pleasing to Him, would be told "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." These were men who truly thought they were true believers and on their way to heaven.

Surely this same result of following false teaching is applicable to our day. Those deceived will be told, "I never knew you: depart from me." How could people be this mistaken? Perhaps they succeed in their effort to “accept Jesus into their heart," which is being taught today as all that is necessary, instead of what God's word reveals. Indeed, people are listening to the "traditions and doctrines of men" instead of searching the Scriptures for the truth, as did the Bereans, who were spoken of as being noble for so doing (Acts 17:11).

Jesus asked the Pharisees, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3-6). They were teaching contrary to God's written word, the result of which was vain worship. Jesus told them, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (verse 9). If someone today teaches contrary to clear teaching regarding what to do to be saved is he not contradicting God's written word, and does he not fit into the category of a false teacher whose worship will be in vain?

God does not want everyone to be teachers. James wrote: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1 ESV).

Paul speaks of men who "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 6:18b). Don’t be simple-minded. Be like the noble Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).

And don't forget our Lord's warning that because of false teachers many go the broad way that leads to destruction, and few find the narrow way that leads to life. If you don't want to be deceived and you want eternal life, do your own study, draw your own conclusions, obey God rather than men. Jews who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion commanded the apostles to stop preaching Jesus. We find their response in Acts 5:29: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." This is basically the choice before all today. Listen to and follow popular preachers or learn the truth and obey God.

Objections to Being Baptized

Objection #1: What about the thief on the cross?

The objection to baptism that is probably heard most often is presented in the form of a question. Some contend that the thief was saved without baptism and therefore the same is true for anyone today. This objection is not valid for several reasons:

a) That the thief had not been baptized is an unproven assertion. John the Baptist baptized a lot of Jews. "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John" (Luke 7:29). Therefore, it is likely that the thief was baptized under John's baptism, which was all that was authorized and available at the time.

b) The thief was not yet covered by the blood but by the grace of God under the Law that looked forward to a sacrifice that would atone for his sins - same as for Moses, David, and all the other heroes of faith.

c) Christ could forgive sin and did so on various occasions.

Objection #2: Paul said baptism is by grace through faith and not of works. Baptism is a work, and so it cannot be required.

Paul's statement, found in Ephesians 2:8-9, is often misused in objecting to the Bible's teaching on baptism. We can believe what Paul wrote here and what the Lord, Paul, and Peter taught about baptism. Yes, salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves. This statement was evidently included to help prevent individuals from thinking they can save themselves, apart from Jesus, by their own works. There was already a problem with that among Jews and they were known to infiltrate churches to cause problems related to such issues. The text in no way overrides the teaching God has given us regarding conditions for receiving grace. To add "alone" to grace, as many do, and "alone" to faith, as they do, is heresy, and is just as bad as adding "alone" to baptism, which is the accusation made against those of us who teach what the Scriptures say about baptism.

Martin Luther did not like the book of James because it conflicted with his conclusion regarding faith only. He did not believe this book should have been included in the canon.
http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/esource-assets/files/1984/original/25.11.An_Epistle_of_Straw__What_Martin_Luther_Said_about_James.pdf?1525183856

At least Luther was not like most who just ignore James' teaching. I can believe James and Paul, but those who insist that salvation is by grace and/or faith only cannot because James contradicts that notion. Look closely at what Paul said and DID NOT say. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9).

God saves us by grace, and faith is required. If He had set it up whereby one could be saved by works (like works of the Law) apart from His grace, people could boast about what they had done to earn salvation. But note that he DID NOT say "grace only" saves, for numerous factors are involved in being saved. The following is a link to twenty-seven components: https://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritual-health-27-things.htm.

Some play on the words "it is the gift of God." They maintain that one cannot buy a gift. That is true, but complying with God's conditions to be saved is not buying salvation.

Objection #3: Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was saved proves that baptism is not essential (Acts 10).

Numerous passages teach that after Pentecost in AD 33, salvation comes after baptism. Was this an exception? My answer is: both yes and no. First, it is apparent that Cornelius was not out of God's graces at the point he received the Holy Spirit. Verses 1-4 make that very clear. Verse 2 says, "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." Does this sound like a man who was not in God's graces? You read on and you see that God was answering Cornelius' prayers.

There was a transition period from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Is it reasonable to conclude that after Christ died on the cross, everyone who had been in God's graces automatically and immediately were lost? That is not reasonable at all. But after hearing the gospel Cornelius HAD to be baptized to obtain the spiritual blessings that are in Christ (Col. 1:13). He had not yet been "buried with Christ in baptism," had not yet "risen to walk in the new life," and had not yet become a "servant of righteousness." This is how one begins the new life in Christ according to the apostle Paul (Rom. 6:3-4, 17-18).

Admittedly, this was an unusual circumstance. It was done for the purpose of helping the Jews understand that Gentiles had been accepted into the family of God. It had become evident that God favored Cornelius in the same way as he favored the Jewish converts. God had manifested himself to Gentiles as He did to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. (See also Acts 11:15-17.) Nevertheless, Cornelius was commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord (v. 48).

If Cornelius' receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism proves he was saved in the way that is generally taught throughout the New Testament, then there is a problem. Peter confirmed that the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius "as I [Peter] began to speak" (Acts 11:15). In this example the Holy Spirit came before hearing the word. He received the Holy Spirit before he heard, which means he had the Holy Spirit before he even had faith in Jesus. There is no example in the New Testament of anyone becoming a Christian hearing the gospel and believing it.

Paul tells us that we are baptized into the body, which is the church (Gal. 3:27; Col 1:18). We read in Acts 2 that Peter responded to those who asked what to do by telling them to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Then, in verse 47 of that same chapter, we are informed that the Lord added to the church daily those who obeyed the command. Cornelius believed and became a Christian, part of the body of Christ and a child of God, but not before being baptized, as was the case with all the other examples of conversion we find in the New Testament.

Objection #4: The one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism.

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:3-5).

Those who have been groomed to believe that baptism is not an essential condition to get into Christ (Gal. 3:27) often retort that the "one baptism" noted in the text above is Holy Spirit baptism. But neither the context nor the Scriptures overall support this assertion. The text, above, is about unity. If there is more than one baptism, there can be no unity regarding baptism. (In our conclusion we will see that there can be no unity regarding any of the important issues noted if there is more than one baptism.) To settle this, Paul tells us there is "one baptism." Second, the Ethiopian eunuch, after having had Christ preached to him, said, "See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:26-39).

If the "one baptism" is not water but Holy Spirit baptism, then how are we to interpret the above text? Phillip and the eunuch were riding in a chariot and came upon "a certain water." How can one believe this passage does not destroy the claim that baptism is Holy Spirit baptism when WATER was used to baptize a man who said he believed and who confessed that Christ is the Son of God? Furthermore, the text tells us "They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Then, the text says they "came up out of the water."

Considering the teachings of verse 5 of chapter 4, if it is hermeneutically sound to assert that there is more than one baptism, to include Holy Spirit baptism, then it is hermeneutically sound to teach that there is more than one body, more than one Spirit, more than one Lord, more than one faith, and more than one God. Add to this the teaching of Peter regarding water that saved Noah, which Peter said is a "like figure" that "also now saves us," not the washing of "filth from the flesh" but the "answer of a good conscience toward God." This happens as one submits to God's conditions for being saved (1 Pet. 3:21).

Objection #5: Baptism is an outward expression of an inward grace; or Baptism is a mere symbol or emblem of purification. It has nothing to do with being saved.

First, never does the objector to baptism provide a passage of Scripture to support what is said above. Peter likens the family of Noah, that was "saved by water," to those being baptized, by saying that baptism "doth also now save us." He refers to baptism as a "like figure." But this is not akin to the "outward expression" ruse or the "inward grace" maneuver.

This objection to baptism warrants more than a refutation. We shall look to Paul's teaching to see that the new life begins with baptism and is thus not merely a show or expression of some kind.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4).

Clearly, the new life begins when we "rise to walk in a new life." A few verses later, when Paul is still talking about this very doctrine, he says: "being THEN made free from sin you became the servants of righteousness" (17-18). Thus, the notion that baptism is only a symbol or outward expression is soundly defeated and the truth is made apparent.

Objection #6: The "one baptism" is not water.

We have already shown that the one baptism is not the Holy Spirit baptism. In this section we deal specifically with whether the one baptism is or is not "water baptism."

Paul wrote to the Ephesians saying that there is "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). He had just said there is "one body," and "one Spirit," and "one Lord." Thus, as I said previously, if at the time of Paul's writing, there could be more than one baptism, then there could just as well be more than one body, Spirit, and Lord.

Several passages help one come to the conclusion that the "one baptism" is in water, as is commonly practiced to this day. Note the following:

The Ethiopian eunuch said, "See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). The details indicate that these men were near a river or body of water because we see in verse 38 that "they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

The Lord Himself teaches that water is involved in being born again. He said to Nicodemus,

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:3-5).

It is argued that Jesus is not even talking about baptism here. The line of reasoning put forth is that the water one must be born of is the natural birth. (The proponents of this idea evidently heard about a woman's water breaking before birth.) First, that claim has Jesus saying, "One must be born," which goes without saying. If that is the meaning, Jesus made an irrational statement. He first said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This clearly is not talking about when a man is born naturally. But Nicodemus did not understand how one could be born again. Jesus explained that this new birth takes place in water, at which time a person is also born of the Spirit. This harmonizes with Paul's teaching that one rises from the baptismal water and begins the new life (Rom. 6:3-4).

We have already seen that Cornelius was commanded to be baptized; and, of course, he had already received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, so that cannot be the baptism commanded. And remember, Paul said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized...?" (Acts 10:47).

The apostle Peter likened the "eight souls that were saved by water" to the people of his day who were being saved through baptism. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21). There can be no doubt, when one considers the context, that the "one baptism" is baptism in water.

Objection #7: Paul said Christ did not send him to baptize.

In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is dealing with division caused primarily by some Christians' exalting themselves above others or exalting one apostle above another apostle. In this context it is easy to understand Paul's meaning.

Paul first said, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius" (vs 14). He noted that he had also baptized two households but could not remember any other, which is unlike many preachers of our day who boast about the baptisms they have performed, who the people were, and how many - rather than rejoicing in the conversions that took place due to all involved in the teaching. Paul did not want to be seen as doing this.

If Paul meant baptism was not important, and not part of his business, then he was not included in the great commission to the disciples to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). It was not Paul's principal business to baptize. However, he had no intention of devaluing the importance of baptism, for such would have contradicted his own teaching.

Adam Clark references Bp. Pearce saying he "'translates thus: For Christ sent me, not so much to baptize as to preach the Gospel: and he supports his version thus - "The writers of the Old and New Testaments do, almost every where (agreeably to the Hebrew idiom) express a preference given to one thing beyond another by an affirmation of that which is preferred, and a negation of that which is contrary to it: and so it must be understood here, for if St. Paul was not sent at all to baptize, he baptized without a commission; but if he was sent, not only to baptize but to preach also, or to preach rather than baptize, he did in fact discharge his duty aright."

Conclusion

The argument that most objectors to baptism seem to be mainly confident in is that baptism is not a work, and they misuse Paul's statement to support that notion, which they assert proves baptism is not essential. There is disagreement as to whether baptism is a work or not. It is something we DO in response to the condition God has given to be saved. But certainly, it is not something someone can boast about, for someone else does the baptizing and the natural response is to come up from the water and thank God for his grace and forgiveness. As Peter said, it is done "asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21, ISV).

Those who challenge the necessity of baptism are very confused. They contend that salvation is by grace only and/or faith only. But if salvation is by "grace only" then one could be saved without Christ. Clearly salvation is not by "grace only," for the text makes it clear that "faith" is required. And it cannot be by "faith only" because it is also by "grace." It is nonsense to say that salvation is by "both only," as some do, for TWO acts are involved - one and one make TWO. How can an honest person who claims to be a Christian object to baptism, or the reason for doing it, when many biblical passages teach the necessity of baptism?

That God gave examples of people's having faith but not being saved should not be overlooked or discarded. "The devils believed and trembled" (James 2:19). Were the devils saved? "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue" (John 12:42). It is apparent from Jesus' teaching that confession is a requirement for salvation, which means that "grace only" and "faith only" are teachings of men, as these claims contradict Jesus' teachings. And Jesus not only taught the necessity of confession but also repentance. "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). Jesus considered this to be so important that he repeated it (v. 5).

No one is saved by "works only," but this does not mean we don't have to do anything. That God has given conditions for receiving His blessings cannot be successfully denied in honorable debate. The conditions can be IGNORED and are ignored by those who do not want to be told to do something, and by those who simply hate the word of God and seek to pervert it. Those who want truth and want to please God will respond positively to passages like the following, rather than responding with "You are just cherry-picking passages."

(Heb 5:9) "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Is salvation, initial and continual, not contingent upon obedience, according to the above passage? Clearly it is.

(Matt 7:21) "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Doing the will of God starts with what He requires men to do to be saved. We see in Scripture that people asked what to do to be saved and were told what to do (Acts 2:36-38).

Paul's Conversion:

(Acts 9:6) "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

Paul was a murderer and persecutor of the church. He was not saved. He believed and asked what to do, and was told what to do. He did as commanded. In Acts 22:16, we see that he was told to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord..."

(Act 16:30 "Sirs, what must I DO to be saved?"

One cannot defend the teaching of "faith only" or "grace only" without explaining these passages. They don’t harmonize with the faith only teaching. Those who teach such know it does not, but they are dishonestly cherry-picking passages and continue to make the same arguments with seemingly no care that their doing so forces the Bible to contradict itself.