Lots of Evangelicals want to answer “no” to this question.
Actually, that understates the situation. Evangelicals typically look at you as if you are insane to bring up the questions, let alone to state the affirmative.
The problem with this position is that Evangelicals are bound to believe what the Bible teaches. And the Bible says inconvenient things, like
- “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3.21),
- “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3.27, 28),
- “by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free” (1 Corinthians 12.13),
- “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death… Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6.3, 4),
- “in Christ you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Colossians 3.11, 12).
Many people have decided that since they know the Bible could not possibly be saying such things about baptism, the baptism being referred to must be a dry “spiritual” baptism, not water baptism.
But again there are some inconvenient statements in the Bible. For example, in the book of Acts in the first sermon of the Church, Peter gives this altar call: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2.38). Here, there is no question that normal water baptism is intended, because the text goes on to record that three thousand were baptized that day in response to Peter’s words.
Or consider Paul’s testimony about what Ananias said to get him to submit to baptism:
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, “Brother Saul, receive your sight.” And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:12-16, ESV)
Yet Peter’s statements about baptism are quite similar to those in the New Testament Epistles quoted above. On what basis do we claim that the Epistles must not be speaking of water baptism? Are not the quotations from Acts just as challenging? There is no evidence that readers of the apostles’ letters to them would regard there mentions of baptism as not referring to the baptism which they had undergone and which they practiced with water.
We can be sure, of course, that baptism does not absolutely guarantee that a person will inherit glory and escape condemnation at the resurrection. The Apostle Paul says amazing things about baptism in chapter 12 of his first letter to the Corinthians, but he warns them earlier that baptism does not mean they will escape the wrath of Jesus if they worship other gods (1 Corinthians 10.1-12). Likewise, Acts tells us of a man named Simeon who was baptize but then manifested an unbelieving heart (Acts 8.9-24). Also, when the Apostle Peter writes, “baptism now saves you” he compares baptism to the Noah and his family brought to safety through the flood on the Ark. Yet Ham apostatized and rebelled as both Peter and his readers must have known.
I am leaving out many possible further allusions to baptism in the New Testament. I think the way baptism is somehow kept out of such passages and Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3 (despite the surrounding context of the work of John the baptizer), or Titus 3.5, or Hebrews 10.22 is rather amazing. But I stick with the even more obvious statements so as not to quibble.
So what are we to think of baptism?
First of all, we need to remember that we ourselves can do things through signs and God is no less powerful than we are. We enter marriage through ceremonies, many cultures effect adoption by ceremonies, and the simple words “I promise” are means of doing something through a statement. The baptizer is not acting on his own, but is acting as God’s representative. Just as God is the one who marries a man and woman through human agency (Matthew 19.6; Mark 10.9), so baptism is God’s act, not man’s.
If we try to solve this puzzle of baptism without considering anything besides the ritual itself, I don’t think a solution is available. However, what if we consider the fact that Jesus established a new society, His Church?
The Church is “the household of God” (1 Timothy 3.15; 1 Peter 4.17). She is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5.32) and the mother of all believers (Galatians 4.26). She is a corporate priesthood and royal dynasty (1 Peter 2.5, 9; Revelation 1.6). The Church has been given Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.22, 23) with all his benefits and gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12.4ff).
Here we have an angle that allows baptism to be something incredibly important and yet avoids superstition or false assurance. Baptism is how one enters the Church. If the Church is the family of God (1 Timothy 3.15; 1 Peter 4.17) and the mother of all believers (Galatians 4.26), and if baptism is how one is admitted into the Church (1 Corinthians 12.13), then naturally, baptism would be the normal way one is adopted into God’s family as one of his children (Galatians 3.26, 27).
While members of the Church are promised forgiveness, the Spirit, and many other benefits, the Bible does not say that all members of the Church will take advantage of these great things. Sadly, some do not persevere in what they have been given. They must receive God’s promises and gifts by faith. One is justified by faith, after all–a persevering faith (Hebrews 10.35-39).
But the fact that baptism and membership among God’s people does not guarantee one will inherit eternal life, does not mean that we should disregard it as of no significance. We should not be like Esau who despised his birthright and traded it for red stew. We should regard the promises made to us by God in baptism to be so precious that we would never trade them for all the treasures of creation.
The point here is that it is easier to trust Christ to save us and bring us to the resurrection in glory if one is confident that one has been entrusted to Christ. The Church is Jesus’ special trust and we receive in baptism God’s promise that we belong to him and he to us. We must respond to this in faith by following Christ all our days.
No one should presume on his baptism as a “free pass” into heaven, but neither should anyone despise his baptism in unbelief.<>
“No one should presume on his baptism as a ‘free pass’ into heaven…”
Doesn’t this kinda undo everything you just said?
No.
Now that you mention it, I can see how it might be taken that way. But I don’t think it has to be taken that way. Rather than undoing what I said I think what I said should give you interpretive context.
Baptism, if unaccompanied by faith, does absolutely nothing.
Wouldnwe say of an unfaiful husband that he was never really a husband because he was unfaithful to his vows? Rather, his sexual sin is compounded by this reality (his union to his wife, accomplished by solemn ceremony), and he stands condemned, not for not being a husband, but for being an unfaithful husband, in much the same way that unfaithful Israel is repeatedly called to repentance for breaking covenant, not for never really being in covenant with Yahweh in first place. To put it another way (at the risk of belaboring the point), a Russian national who steals American weapons technology and gives it to his government has committed an act of war. An American who steals the same tech and turns it over to the same people has committed treason, an entirely different crime, though the physical action was identical.
Remember when you had to learn to walk in your faith, to accept new things? Jesus said, “I must go so He can come” Jesus said it is better for me to leave so that the Holy Spirit will come. Ask yourself WHY Jesus would say this??Why so we need the Holy Spirit?? Mainly to decearn and be lead into truth. Paul said to the new believers who received John’s baptism, yes, but have you received the Baptism of the Holy Spiri? I say this because you are all mislead with mere details until you are guided by the Holy Spirit.i challenge you to study Acts 19:1-7 and tell me it is not for you. Blessings.
Luke 23:43…what is the interpretation of this verse according to this article?