Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Believer’s Baptism by Immersion, Questions

Speaker
David Capoccia

Listen to Audio Save MP3 Save PDF


Slides / Handouts

PDF document available for this sermon.

Your browser doesn’t support PDF embedding.

Download PDF

Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

This lesson addresses common questions and objections regarding believers baptism by immersion. We are reminded that baptism is not a means of salvation but an obedient testimony of saving faith, and that the Bible’s teaching on justification by faith alone must govern how we interpret passages that seem to link baptism with salvation.

Key Lessons:

  1. Baptism is the first and quickest proof that salvation by faith is real — it does not accomplish salvation but demonstrates it.
  2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion, not as a separate later empowering event, and water baptism symbolizes this spiritual reality.
  3. The early church’s embrace of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, while historically significant, must be evaluated against Scripture rather than accepted as authoritative tradition.
  4. The argument connecting circumcision to baptism as a basis for infant baptism is an inference from a theological system rather than from the direct teaching of Scripture.

Application: We are called to take baptism seriously as a commanded act of obedience — not delaying it out of apathy, yet not treating it as a saving work. We should be willing to submit to our church elders’ counsel on matters of baptism and church membership, even when our personal convictions may differ.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How does understanding that baptism is a testimony rather than a saving act change the way we view our own baptism and encourage others toward it?
  2. How should we respond to Christians from traditions that practice infant baptism or baptismal regeneration — and where is the line between tolerance and correction?
  3. In what ways might we be guilty of treating baptism too casually, and what does a willing refusal to be baptized reveal about the genuineness of someone’s faith?

Scripture Focus: Ephesians 2:8-10 and Galatians 2:16 establish that salvation is by grace through faith apart from works. 1 Peter 3:21 clarifies that baptism saves not as a ritual but as an appeal to God from a good conscience. Matthew 3:11, John 1:33, and Acts 1:5 define the baptism of the Holy Spirit as believers’ union with God at conversion. Colossians 2:11-12 is examined regarding the circumcision-baptism connection.

Outline

Introduction

All right. Well, good morning to this smaller group of person with interesting weather conditions. I do appreciate your being here and I say hello to all of you who are necessarily online today. But welcome back to our defending distinctive Sunday school.

Last time we began examining the controversial issue of baptism and I over the mic and hopefully those online will be able to hear me soon. But your elders are convinced here of the position that the Bible prescribes only believers baptism and that by immers So there we are. Okay. Hopefully now you hear me online. The microphone is on.

We’re looking at the second part of our examination of the Bible’s teaching on baptism. We do hold to believers baptism by immersion. Last week I overviewed this position. This week we’re looking at common questions and objections to our position. So the agenda for today’s class is pretty straightforward. We will begin with a short review. Then we will look at about nine questions and objections. Maybe we’ll have a time for a tenth bonus one and then we’ll do questions from you if there’s time. But it’s a lot of material to get through today. So we will see. Let me pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for your Bible’s teaching. We thank you for the ordinance of baptism and how you’ve given it to us and what it signifies and how it brings back to mind these beautiful salvation realities. I pray that I’d be able to communicate this well and you’d equip us for handling some of the controversy and confusion around baptism today in Jesus name.

Amen.

Amen.

Review of Key Questions

All right. So, let’s begin with review.

I went over five questions in the last class and we’ll briefly go through those and what the answers are. What is baptism? Well, we often call it an ordinance. That is it is one of two ordained rights ries commanded by Jesus for his church. A a memorial ceremony, a right to go through. More specifically, baptism is the obedient testimony of a new believer’s faith, faith in and saving union with Jesus Christ as symbolized by that believer’s being immersed in and raised up out of water. Who should baptize? Christians should. It’s part of the great commission. But best practice is that baptism should take place in a church assembly by a qualified church leader. Who should be baptized? Only believers. The Bible’s prescribed that is commanded and described pattern is repentance and faith and then baptism.

How should a person be baptized? By immersion in water. This is what the word baptized means from the Greek and this is the sense we get in the described baptisms in the Bible.

What does baptism mean or signify in itself? It is not a means of spiritual cleansing or saving grace, but it is the obedient testimony of faith in and union with Christ with multiple implications.

“Baptism is not a means of spiritual cleansing or saving grace, but the obedient testimony of faith in and union with Christ.”

And we went over seven of those last time, including being joined to Christ’s church. This proper meaning it is tied to the proper persons and mode. If you don’t baptize believers but other people or if you do it by sprinkling you confuse the picture that baptism is meant to communicate. All right. So that’s the review. If you want more information about that side of it, go back to last week’s lesson. But let’s now face some common questions and objections. And we did touch on a few of these last time. We’ll try and get through nine of them. Some of them are real quick and some of them take a little bit more explanation.

How Public Does Baptism Need to Be?

First, how public does baptism need to be? How public does baptism need to be?

No hard and fast rule from scripture.

However, considering what baptism represents, what we went over last time, it makes sense to do it in a setting in which a meaningful portion of the church is present. Doesn’t necessarily have to be the whole church, but it should be some representative portion. In some places, this might take place in a very secret church meeting. In other places, this can be very open. It can be totally public. You go to the local river or whatever it is and and you do a baptism there. It’s going to depend. We don’t want to fear man or be ashamed of Jesus.

“Considering what baptism represents, it makes sense to do it where a meaningful portion of the church is present.”

But we also don’t want to invite unnecessary danger or persecution. We compare some of the principles from Matthew 10:16. Be shrewd as serpents but innocent as doves. Jesus sends us out as lambs in the midst of wolves. But John 12:42 and 43. We don’t want to be like those who believed in Jesus but wouldn’t confess him because they love the approval of men rather than the approval of God. So it’s going to be a little bit of a tension there and it’s going to vary depending on the situation.

Why Do We Delay Baptism?

Number two, why do we delay baptism with things like classes when the new meth new testament pattern is baptism taking place pretty much immediately after someone’s profession of faith.

Okay. It is significant that the pattern in Acts is immediate baptism after profession. But an important interpretation principle for us to keep in mind is that just because something happens descriptively in a narrative portion of the Bible does not necessarily mean it is prescriptive.

“Just because something happens descriptively in a narrative does not necessarily mean it is prescriptive.”

That is that you must do it, you must follow that example, you must obey that command. We must subject whatever we see by way of example in the narratives with what the Bible says explicitly in its teaching portions. So the letters of the New Testament they supersede they they show us how we should understand the narrative portions of it like the book of acts. Now in those teaching portions we don’t have a rule about the speed of baptism. This is the same thing for celebration of the lord’s table.

Sometimes people say why don’t we celebrate the lord’s table every week.

They were doing that in the book of acts or they did it every time they came together. Okay that’s how they did it but it’s not necessarily prescribed for Jesus church for all time. And when you look at the rest of the New Testament, there’s no command there. It just says as often as you celebrate. Similarly, when it comes to baptism, it says do it.

The Unique Context of Early Church Baptisms

Doesn’t say how long you should wait or if you should wait. It just says do it. Now, something that is important for us in terms of understanding this issue to observe is that the first Christian baptisms in the book of Acts, they were administered in a unique context. And that is clearly because it’s the apostles who are preaching the gospel and then people getting baptized right afterwards. These were authoritative gospel presentations.

You don’t have to worry like, oh, I don’t I don’t know if those people heard the true gospel and actually responded to it because who are these guys? They’re the apostles. So yes, they’re going to authoritative authoritatively declare the gospel. There’s no question that people are responding to a true gospel presentation. And also in this early church context, in the New Testament church context, there’s a clear danger of persecution for getting baptized and identifying with Jesus in his church. It’s not like, oh everybody’s getting baptized, I’m going to get baptized, too. It’s more like, whoa, this is serious. If I get baptized, I’m inviting excommunication from my community and perhaps injury and death.

“The first Christian baptisms in Acts were administered in a unique context — authoritative gospel presentations by the apostles.”

Contrast that with today where there are multiplied Christian gospels as well as multiplied baptism understandings. And in large sectors of the world, becoming a Christian or being baptized, it risks relatively little for your life. And the United States is probably one of those places. In comparison of maybe some other places, you’re being baptized doesn’t invite the overturning of your life like it does in other places.

Wisdom in Slowing Down the Process

Thus, we as elders at Calvary see wisdom in slowing down the baptism process to make sure that those who desire to be baptized truly understand the gospel, truly understand baptism, and truly understand church membership. That is, being part of a church.

We don’t want to make the baptism process too slow or needlessly difficult. We want to have regular baptism classes, baptism membership classes, and we don’t want those classes to be too long. But we also don’t want to rush to affirm a testimony that we simply aren’t sure about.

“We see wisdom in slowing down the baptism process to make sure those who desire baptism truly understand the gospel.”

Even slowing down does not yield perfect results, but it’s better than if we didn’t slow down. Just say, “Oh, you profess Christ. We’re going to dunk you in the water right away.” Like, “Okay, what did you actually profess? What does it mean to be a Christian? What does it mean to be baptized?” Now, I grant that in other contexts where it’s clearer person’s understandings of the gospel or the persecution threat is more obvious and sharper that you might have a quicker baptism. Maybe in a largely Muslim country, you’re getting baptized is not one of those things where you have to wait as long because people understand what that really means. I could die if I get baptized.

But there might be other reasons for delaying there. I I’m not particularly sure. But I’m saying what we do here is not necessarily what you have to do in all places of the world. But there are reasons for there are good reasons for slowing down just a little bit somebody’s baptism at profession. And interestingly, we’re not the only Christians in history who have thought this. Even in the late 1st century going into the second century, some Christians in the Roman Empire were concluding that it would be wise to slow down baptisms to make sure that people really understand what they’re getting into.

Why Require Believers Baptism for the Lord’s Table?

So that’s the answer there. Number three, why do we require believers baptism for celebrating the Lord’s table? This is a common question from visitors to our church. They’re getting ready to celebrate the Lord’s table and we say, “Oh, only if you’ve been baptized as a believer.” Why that rule? Why that distinction?

Well, again, that’s not something that’s spelled out in the Bible. And different churches and different elders of churches might have different stances on this, and that’s okay.

But we do it this way because of what we talked about last time. Baptism represents initiation into Christ and into his body. If you’re joined to Christ by union, then you are necessarily joined to his church. It doesn’t make sense to participate in the other right representing union with Christ and his church in a continued way if you haven’t first done the right of being initiated into Christ and his church. The Lord’s table in many ways it is a memorial of your continued union and fellowship with Christ and his people. So why would you say I’m going to do the continue the right of continuation when you haven’t done the right of initiation?

“It doesn’t make sense to participate in the rite of continuation when you haven’t done the rite of initiation.”

It makes sense that you do baptism and then you can celebrate the Lord’s table.

And again, we’re not the first ones to see this. The dedicay, the baptism handbook composed in the late first century. It makes the same recommendation. It says if people haven’t been baptized, they shouldn’t celebrate the Lord’s table. So that was even in the late first century. Again, that’s not a hard and fast rule, but because of what baptism represents, we hold to that position here. Yeah, Dwayne, you’re gonna say something.

Yeah. No, because we delay baptism because of class.

A person may want to be there’s no person in the class. Would it be okay to participate?

Have first class.

That’s a good question. Dwayne asks because of what I just shared and this whole idea that we do also delay the baptisms for people to be able to go into a class. What if somebody signs up to be baptized to to go through the class? Are they allowed to participate in the Lord’s table?

While they wait for that to actually happen because their heart is there.

They’re looking to be obedient and there there’s just a delay and so they want to obey the Lord and observing the Lord’s table at the same time. I’d have to think about that more. My my initial thought is comes down to the conscience of the person who’s doing that. I I think it’d be fine if the person said, “I haven’t been baptized yet. I’m going to wait.” Or other people say, “Well, I’ve signed up and I’m ready to be baptized and so I think it’s okay for me to participate.” I my initial thought is I I would leave that up to the individual.

I don’t think it would be wrong for that person to do it. They’re they’re following the intent of what we’re what we’re trying to the the order that we’re trying to emphasize in baptism before Lord’s table. But I had to think about that more. Good question. All right, keep moving on.

Why Baptize Only Prospective Members?

These are all related. You can see why do we baptize only prospective members?

Why do we only baptize those who are going to become members at our church?

Okay. Well, church membership that also is a concept that is not spelled out specifically in the Bible. Yet, it is assumed. Commitment to a local church is assumed or implied in the descriptions of the Bible. For example, in Acts 5:14, it says those who were converted were added to their number, the known number of believers and even the believers of that local church gathering or gatherings in that particular city.

Again, thinking about what baptism represents. Baptism represents immersion into Christ and into his body, the church.

So it wouldn’t make sense for one to embrace the symbol. Oh yeah, I got to be obedient, be baptized, but not the reality that the symbol depicts. Oh, I’m I don’t need to be part of a church. I don’t need to be meaningfully committed to a church. Thus, we say if you want to get baptized, but you don’t want to become a member, let’s slow down. I don’t think you quite understand baptism or the basics of the Christian life, especially the Christians need for the church. Or if you do want to get baptized and you do want to join the church, but just not this church. Okay.

“It wouldn’t make sense to embrace the symbol but not the reality that the symbol depicts.”

Well, let the church that you do want to join be the one that baptizes you because then the symbol makes sense most meaningfully. You’re being integrated as a member at that church, being immersed into Christ’s body and showing it in your participation at that local church.

We do want you to be baptized. We just wanted to make sense with what baptism actually signifies.

Should I Get Baptized Again?

So, a lot of explaining of why we do things a certain way. Number five, should I get baptized again if I was perhaps baptized wrongly?

And the answer here is it depends.

If there was something wrong with the baptizer, you say, “Oh, that person later departed from the faith or that person was in secret sin while I was being baptized.” Well, then most of the time the answer is going to be no. You don’t need to be rebaptized. The validity of your baptism is not dependent on the one who baptized you but the fact that it was before witnesses and that it was before God and the act is ultimately dependent on him.

If you were baptized though not as a believer then yes you should get rebaptized because what you testified before in baptism was not true.

“If you were baptized not as a believer, then yes you should get rebaptized because what you testified before was not true.”

So you should set the record straight and give a genuine obedient testimony by baptism now. So if you were baptized as a baby and only later came to faith, you should get rebaptized. Or if you got baptized but you didn’t really believe the gospel at that time and understand it, now that you do, you should get rebaptized.

When the Mode Was Different

Now what if you were baptized as a believer but not in the proper mode?

If you were sprinkle baptism or poured baptism or it was just you and one other person, not really corresponding to what baptism represents and and the be best practice for doing that. Should you get rebaptized? Well, submit to your elders council about that. It’s not necessarily true that a private baptism or baptisms by sprinkling or pouring are invalid. In extreme cases, we would agree with others in church history would say that these are valid. So if they’re okay in extreme cases, then they could be okay in less than extreme cases. The basic elements are there, even if it’s not quite picturing baptism as God intended.

Nevertheless, some churches and church elders might require another baptism just so that there’s no question that you and they have done everything rightly. And that’s the position that we take here.

If you were if you wanted to become a member here, then we would ask if you were baptized by immersion. And if you weren’t, we would say, “Well, are you willing to be baptized by immersion just so that we and you can say you’ve done it exactly as God intended.” We’re not in in asking you to do this, we’re not saying that your previous baptism was false and that you’ve been in sin this whole time. No, it we’re just saying that as God has called you to be baptized, so he has called us to baptize. And we want to do it in the way that he told us to.

It’s not a sin. It’s not a discounting of your previous baptism to get baptized again. You can’t don’t don’t say to yourself, “Oh man, if I get baptized again, I think it was valid, but they don’t think it was valid. If I go through with this, I’m basically confessing that I wasn’t valid.” No, no, no. We’re not saying that.

We’re just as you understand the full significance of baptism and its proper mode, we want to make it clear that you’ve done exactly as God would command you to. And really, it’s just another great opportunity for you to testifi testify about Christ’s grace in your life and how he saved you and how he’s continuing to sanctify you.

“It’s just another great opportunity for you to testify about Christ’s grace in your life.”

I would I don’t know just personally, I feel like I’d be happy to get baptized again if there was a need because like another opportunity to declare Christ.

That’s great.

It also is a clear signal about your willingness to submit to your local church elders even in matters in which your convictions are different. You may say, “I think it’s totally valid. I’m convinced that before God, but because you’ve asked me as elders to to be rebaptized, I’m willing to do that because I want to show my my submission to you here.” So that’s my answer for number five.

What Is the Baptism of the Spirit?

Number six, what is the baptism of the spirit and is it connected to water baptism at all?

Key Texts on Spirit Baptism

Okay, aside from John the Baptist baptism of repentance, there are three main baptisms described in the New Testament. There’s baptism in water, there’s baptism into Christ, and there’s baptism with or in the Holy Spirit. And these latter two baptisms are interrelated. And water baptism is the symbol of both. Now, key texts for understanding baptism of the spirit are three that I put on or I’ve mentioned as references on the screen, and I’ll read them to you. First, Matthew 3:11.

Matthew 3:11, this is John the Baptist speaking. He says, “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I’m not fit to remove his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Okay, who’s the one coming after John? This is Jesus Christ. And so John is saying Jesus is the one who would bring about a greater baptism than even John has. Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit for his people. John contrast himself. I baptize with water. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

John 133. John 133. This is John the Baptist again.

I did not recognize him. But he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, “He upon whom you see the spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” So in many ways, that’s the same thing that we read from Matthew. But notice though we do have the contrast again. I baptize in water. He baptizes with the spirit. It’s actually not the word with there. It’s in the Holy Spirit. He baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Enter into the Holy Spirit.

John 1:33: “He upon whom you see the spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.”

And then Acts 15, Acts 15, this is Jesus now speaking. Acts 15, for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Now, John 1, Acts 15 is significant in the context of those two other verses that we read because Jesus by his words is alluding to John the Baptist’s earlier prophecy about Jesus baptism with the Holy Spirit. Notice the contrast again in Acts 15. Jesus says, “John baptized with water.” But there’s a greater baptism coming. And what is it? It’s baptism with the Holy Spirit.

And when’s it going to happen? Not many days from now. Okay. What is that?

What’s the what’s the event that’s going to take place? Not many days from now in which Jesus was speaking the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit visibly came down upon the church. And the apostles then began speaking about Jesus in languages that they had never trained in before. Known human languages they were able to speak miraculously the truths about God. So notice Jesus connects his imminent baptism baptizing by and in the Holy Spirit with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost to indwell believers. Okay, piecing those three verses together, the explanation the baptism of the spirit is pretty simple.

To be baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit is to be placed in the spirit and have to and to have the spirit placed into you. Or in other words, baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to believers union with God by faith and the believers being indwelt by God through the Holy Spirit.

“To be baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit is to be placed in the spirit and to have the spirit placed into you.”

Now, this should sound a little bit familiar because one of the concepts I tried to explain last time is that baptism represents immersion into the whole godhead.

Just as Jesus baptizes us in the spirit, the spirit baptizes us into Christ and into Christ’s church. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says 1 Corinthians 12:13, we saw this verse last time. For by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.

When Does Spirit Baptism Take Place?

So answer me this, when do these spiritual baptisms take place? When is a person baptized into Christ? And when is a person baptized into the spirit?

A conversion. It’s when you repent and believe. And water baptism or water baptism is just a testimony of such.

“When is a person baptized into Christ and into the spirit? At conversion — when you repent and believe.”

Again, this is why I said baptism is a memorial of our immersion in the whole godhead. In baptism, you are also testifying, I have been immersed in the spirit, and the spirit has been immersed into me. And there and thereby, I have the whole godhead. I am in union with the whole trinity.

The Baptism of Fire

By the way, going back to Matthew 3:11, what is the baptism of fire that Jesus is said to bring?

Judgement.

It is judgment. Some people sometimes connect the baptism of fire with the fiery tongues at the day of Pentecost or even of just zeal and love for God. Oh, God, just set me on fire. But there might be a right way to use that metaphor, but that’s not the way that John is using it in Matthew 3. Because the very next verse, right after Matthew 3:11, we have this in Matthew 3:12.

His winnowing fork, that’s the one coming after me, Jesus, his winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor, and he will gather his wheat into the barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Okay, I think he clarified what the baptism of fire means there. It’s judgment. It’s judgment on those who won’t believe.

“He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. The baptism of fire is judgment on those who won’t believe.”

So, as one of my professors said at seminary, you can believe and be baptized with the spirit or you can refuse and be baptized with the fire of judgment.

Now, somebody pointed out to me last week that it’s kind of striking that in baptism, you go into the water and then you come out of the water. And if we think of the way that 1 Peter 3 describes it, that water is in in one sense the judgment of God. So you you pass through the judgment safely and you come up out of the water. But for those who don’t believe, they go into the water and they don’t come out.

Jesus is saying the same truth or rather John the Baptist is saying the same truth by a different metaphor. He will baptize with the spirit but he will also baptize with fire. Which one do you want?

The Charismatic View of Spirit Baptism

Now saying all this we should note that baptism of the Holy Spirit has a different meaning in charismatic theology. Pentecostal charismatic background.

They use this term to describe something different than what the Bible describes.

The Pentecostal idea is that only sometime after you are saved you receive the baptism of the spirit which is an empowering event. And when you receive this baptism, it is evidenced by your speaking in tongues and it opens the door to the exercise of other miraculous gifts in your life. So where do they get this from if it’s not biblical? Well, they pattern it off the experience of the apostles and others in the early church, the New Testament church, who already believed in Jesus and only later received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit’s empowerment as obviously displayed in the use of tongues. So we see that on the day of Pentecost, these disciples already believe and then they’re baptized with the spirit and then some others in the book of Acts who apparently already believe and only later they receive the obvious confirmation of being able to speak in tongues and and being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

But that’s not what the Bible would lead us to understand. Why not?

This stance that charismatics, those of a charismatic persuasion often hold, it does not recognize what we said in the beginning that the narrative texts are subservient to the didactic text, to the teaching text, what you see in the book of Acts, it has to be interpreted by what you see in the New Testament letters of instruction. But also this stance seeing baptism of the spirit as a later empowering event. It does not recognize that the book of acts describes a unique transition period in the church. A period that is not normative for the church today wasn’t even normative for the New Testament church. It quickly what you see in the beginning of book of acts that’s not what you see in the rest of the book of acts or in the letters where you had before the day of pentecost it was possible for believers to believe in Jesus but not have the holy spirit but after the different sectors of the church were obviously welcomed in the Jews the Samaritans the Gentiles some longlost disciples of John the Baptist once they’re all officially confirmed in with the obvious coming down of the spirit and speaking in tongues. There’s no need for that anymore. Anybody who’s converted in any of those backgrounds has the spirit when they believe. Which is why Romans 8:9 says Romans 8:9.

However, you are not in the flesh but in the spirit. If indeed the spirit of God dwells in you, but if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.

There’s no separating the baptism or indwelling of the spirit from conversion anymore. In that unique transition period in Acts, yeah, you do see a little bit of separation and delay, but not anymore. And so charismatics, even those who may hold to the true gospel, they are an error in teaching a separate baptism of the spirit.

Romans 8:9: “If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.”

Now, whether miraculous gifts continue in the church today is a separate issue.

We’ll cover it in a second separate Sunday school lesson.

Okay, now we’re getting to some real biggies here. Next question.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Why do some New Testament passages seem to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation? We saw this last time.

This idea that baptism is necessary for salvation in some way. It falls under the term baptismal regeneration, which is a doctrine which many sectors of so-called Christianity hold to. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of Christ, that denomination, they hold to in some measure that you must be baptized in order to be saved. You must be literally baptized in order to be saved. Now, it’s true that some passages at first at first glance, they seem to teach this in the Bible. And so, I’ve noted them as problem texts and and I’ll I’ll mention them for you. Mark 16:16. Mark 16:16.

Now, this isn’t a section of the Bible which we have good reason to believe was not part of Mark’s original gospel, but it’s in our Bibles and it’s sometimes cited. Mark 16:16 says, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” John 3:5 John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 22:16.

This I have now confirmed this was Ananas speaking to Paul. I I didn’t remember who was saying this to Paul at that time last lesson. Acts 22:16, Ananas says to Paul, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins.” calling on his name.

And then 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Peter 3:21, corresponding to that dark going through the flood, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Okay, that’s more than one verse. Does baptism save? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Well, in understanding these texts, as we would with any text of the Bible, we must compare it to the rest of scripture. These indivi individual passages must be compared with the rest of scripture. And when we do this, we’re confronted with a fundamental problem.

“These individual passages must be compared with the rest of Scripture.”

Salvation by Grace Through Faith, Not Works

And that is the rest of the scriptures indicate that while something like baptism may be important, it cannot be necessary for salvation, it cannot accomplish any redemptive work on behalf of believers. Because no work is necessary for salvation for believers.

No work can secure cleansing from sin.

It is only by grace through faith.

Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8-10.

For by grace you have been saved. You have been saved through faith. And that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, so that we would walk in them.

Ephesians 2:8-9: “By grace you have been saved through faith. And that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not as a result of works.”

Galatians 2:16 is another example. I could put many more, of course, but Galatians 2:16. Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus. Even we, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, since by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified.

Now, proponents of baptism and regeneration will try and get around verses like this that will say you’re justified by faith. You’re justified by faith. They’ll get they try and get around verses by this by saying baptism is not a work. Baptism is a gift.

Baptism is a gift of God’s grace. It is not a work.

The salvation or the initial justification that comes by baptism, it’s not something you can merit. Not by a work, not by faith, not by repentance.

It’s just a free undeserved gift from God. And so, you can’t call it a work.

Baptism Is Not a Work That Saves

Okay, that’s a nice bit of rhetoric, but that’s an unjustified redefinition of work.

Anything that you can do externally which is necessary for your salvation, whether it’s baptism or circumcision or confession or testimony or prayer, anything external that’s required for salvation, must be a work. That’s what a work is because you can actually do it. It’s an action you take on the outside. That’s the definition of a work. And the Bible says no human work can bring about or contribute to salvation.

“Anything external that’s required for salvation must be a work. And the Bible says no human work can bring about salvation.”

You can say, “Oh, but it’s it’s grace enabled or it’s God-given. It’s still a work.” And the Bible says, “No work, no work will contribute to your salvation.

You’re justified by faith.” Salvation doesn’t happen even by a mental exertion, much less a physical.

Salvation happens how? By repentance and faith. And what is repentance most literally?

It’s a turn where?

In your heart. It’s a change of heart.

It’s a change of mind about yourself, about your sin, about God. And no man can accomplish this for himself. God must do it by his grace.

You cannot change your own heart. You cannot change your own mind. That has to be done by somebody else.

And yet the Bible says this is how we are saved by a change of heart.

Baptism as Proof of Saving Faith

So then what do we do with these baptism verses? Why do the problematic verses so closely link baptism with salvation even salvation by faith? Hang on let me let me come back if you still have a question after I give a little bit more explanation. Why is there this such a intimate link in these verses? The answer is because baptism is the first and in the New Testament church the quickest proof or piece of evidence that your salvation by faith is real.

Baptism is the first and the quickest proof in that context that your salvation by faith is real. To say that another way, if you say you believe in Jesus, but you’re not willing immediately to identify with Jesus and his brethren by undergoing this commanded water, right? Then your salvation testimony is unbelievable.

It’s probably false.

As we saw in the gospel lessons that Mark walked us through, salvation is by faith alone. Yet true faith will always manifest in good works, baptism included.

“Baptism is the first and quickest proof that your salvation by faith is real.”

Now citing here James 2:14-17 doesn’t mention baptism specifically, but again the connection between faith and works.

James 2:14-17.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works?

Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed, and be filled, and yet you do not give him what is necessary for their body,” what use is that? Even so, faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

The Parallel of Verbal Confession

Consider the parallel in Romans 10:9-10.

I don’t know if you’ve thought about these verses extensively. We love the gospel summary that the these verses present. But have you ever considered that if not interpreted carefully, these verses could be construed to teach salvation by works?

That is by a spoken confession.

Because what do these verses say? Romans 10:9-10.

That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus says, “Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with a heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Now, did you catch that? Twice in those two verses, he says, “You have to speak with your mouth to be saved.” Whoa. Does that mean that if I cannot speak or if I don’t speak or if I won’t speak that I won’t actually be saved? If I don’t verbally confess faith in Jesus that I cannot be saved?

And the answer is yes and no.

No, you can be saved without literally moving your mouth. Because as we already saw from Ephesians 2, Galatians 2, you’re justified by faith, the change in heart toward yourself and towards Christ and not by works. That does not require the movement of your mouth.

But on the other hand, yes, you will not be saved unless you confess even verbally your belief in Jesus. Because the faith that is not willing to confess is a false faith.

“Yes, you will not be saved unless you confess, because faith that is not willing to confess is a false faith.”

Do you see the distinction?

Works like baptism, verbal confession or other obedience to God. They do not assist, they do not complete salvation by faith and some kind of faith plus works formula.

Rather, such works function as proof, as evidence as to whether the saving faith is real in the first place.

And this is why the Bible can even speak of in some places of believers being justified in the last day by works, by their works.

It’s not actually that the believers are saved by their works, but the works, they prove the saving faith.

And this is also why evangelists in the Bible could and sometimes did speak of baptism as bringing about salvation or forgiveness of sins. It’s not the ritual of baptism itself that does this. It’s the repentant heart which is experienced before baptism that is now clearly demonstrated in this new fundamental act of obedience.

And isn’t this exactly what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21?

He says, “Baptism now saves you not in the mere removal of dirt by water, but by the appeal to God in a good con or for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ.

Baptism is just new saving faith put on display. Thus, the one being baptized and the ones witnessing the baptism, they become confident that the one being baptized is saved and forgiven by God.” They can’t be confident of that if they don’t see the person being baptized.

Understanding John 3:5

So this is the sense that we see in most of these verses when someone says you need to repent and be baptized. It’s kind of like repent and prove it. Repent and make it clear that you have repented by being baptized. It’s not the baptism itself that saves. It’s just it provides immediate evidence that your faith or your repentance is real. This explains most of the problem verses except maybe John 3:5. John 3:5 says that someone must be born again from water and the spirit to enter into God’s kingdom.

Okay, what could that mean except that someone must be literally baptized in water to receive spiritual life?

Well, actually, it could mean something else and it does. The problem with the interpretation that this is referring to baptism is that that just doesn’t fit in the original context.

We’ve been through this if you remember when we preached through that section of John. Jesus in John 3, they’re speaking to Nicodemus and he’s stressing that one must be born from above, born again by God to enter God’s kingdom. And this is a real shocker to Nicodemus because to be born, to be conceived, to be begotten by God, is something that you cannot contribute to whatsoever. Just as you cannot contribute to your physical birth, so you cannot contribute to your spiritual birth. No work or ritual can get a person into God’s kingdom. No work or ritual can change a person’s heart or change his nature.

So how could Jesus in the context be teaching that and then immediately contradict himself by saying, “Oh, by the way, there’s something that you have to do or else you’re not getting in. You got to be baptized.” Furthermore, Jesus does not say anything else about baptism or water in the rest of the section.

“Just as you cannot contribute to your physical birth, so you cannot contribute to your spiritual birth.”

Also, Christian baptism did not even exist at the time that Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus. Yet Jesus reproves Nicodemus for not already knowing what Jesus is talking about in John 3:10. That would be unfair if Jesus were talking about Christian baptism.

But the truth is that Jesus is not speaking about baptism in John 3:5, but he’s just expanding the description of the totally of God work that is required for anybody to be saved. You not only need to be regenerated, you need new spiritual life, but you need to be cleansed. You need to be fundamentally cleansed by God and by his spirit to be saved. And this is not a weird pairing because we see the same pairing in other sections of the Bible. Significantly, Titus 3:5 also links these two concepts together. And you may remember this when we were going through John 3. Titus 3:5 Paul says, “He saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” So washing of regeneration and renewing.

Two concepts that are important are the two concepts that we see in John 3:5 are also in Titus 3:5 linked together. And these are both built on a key prophecy from the Old Testament in Ezekiel 36.

Ezekiel 36:24-27.

We actually mentioned this verse last time in a in a different context, but this is a prophecy about the new covenant ministry which is going to be brought about by God and by God’s Messiah.

God says by his prophet Ezekiel, “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will be careful to observe my ordinances. So it’s the same thing that Jesus says in John 3:5. And this is why he reproves Nicodemus. Didn’t you see even from the Old Testament, what do we need? Not just a new heart, but we need cleansing. We need God to cleanse us. And both of these things will be accomplished in the new covenant by God’s spirit.

So while John 3:5 is not talking about Christian baptism, Christian baptism symbolizes the spiritual reality that Jesus is talking about in John 3:5.

Kind of kind of like the same thing in John 6 where people say, “Oh, John 6 is about the Lord’s table and transubstantiation.” No, Jesus is talking about the need for our believing in him and taking him in like spiritual food. But that is what the Lord’s table signifies. So we’re not talking about the literal realities in these passages, baptism or the Lord’s table, but we’re talking about the spiritual realities which these external rights that Jesus has commanded us to partake in signify.

Additional Evidence Against Baptismal Regeneration

Few other notable Bible details lead us away from the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. One is that the Apostle Paul went out of his way to downplay his ministry of baptism and to highlight the ministry of the gospel. This is an unthinkable move if salvation is somehow tied to or dependent on baptism. He says 1 Corinthians 1:14, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Chrisus and gas.” What? 1 Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” Okay, that does not make sense if baptism is required for salvation. Also, certain notable people in the Bible verifiably receive full salvation in Jesus apart from or before baptism. Thief on the cross, Luke 23, and the Gentiles with Cornelius. We noted last time how they’re listening to the message about Jesus. As soon as Peter says, “Those who repent and believe in Jesus will be saved,” the spirit comes upon the Gentiles who are present. And what does Peter say afterwards? They’ve received the same salvation as we have. Let’s get these guys baptized.

So, they had the spirit, they had salvation, but they didn’t have baptism yet. It’s because baptism is not required for salvation. It is a mark of testimony, obedient testimony after salvation.

“They had the spirit, they had salvation, but they didn’t have baptism yet. Baptism is not required for salvation.”

Now, it is worth noting that perhaps today we think of baptism as being completely unimportant and some people say, “Oh, I’ll get to that eventually or it doesn’t really matter if I get baptized.” No, it does matter. That is one of those fundamental marks of your salvation. It’s not something to be ignored or put off, but at the same time, it is not necessary for salvation.

If you’re willing to be baptized after repenting and believing, but you somehow don’t get to it before God takes you home, you’re saved. But if you’re not willing, your faith is suspect.

Why Did the Early Church Fathers Seem to Teach Otherwise?

Okay. Number eight, related question. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did the early church fathers seem to teach otherwise?

This is where the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church will often go to back up their positions on baptism. They’ll say, “We just teach what the fathers have always taught.” Now, the historical claims from churches like these, they are often shady. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, they will frequently rewrite, simplify, or reinterpret history to confirm what their church currently teaches. But when it comes to their claims about baptismal regeneration being what the early church believed and taught, generally that is sadly true.

“The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church will frequently rewrite or reinterpret history to confirm what their church currently teaches.”

Our earliest post-biblical Christian document that deals with baptism is the dedicay. I mentioned it’s like a candidate or it’s a handbook for baptismal candidates written around the late first century. It does not teach baptismal regeneration.

But starting in second century, most Christian teachers, most of the church fathers, they affirm some sort of saving or cleansing effect, including the reception of the Holy Spirit in the right of baptism. And to support this, they usually cite John 3:5. You have to be born by water and the spirit.

The Rise of Infant Baptism in History

Weirdly, many teachers, many of these early church fathers, they also begin to affirm that baptism only saves and cleanses from sins up to the point of baptism itself. After that, well, they have to be taken care of by other means, which you might guess would lead to what practice among Christians?

Well, maybe confession as another way of dealing with sin. But if baptism only deals with your sins up to a certain point, when’s the best time to get baptized?

Right before you die. And that’s exactly what happens. People start delaying baptism till death, which is really the the origin of last rights as a sacrament. It’s just kind of like baptism before death. And it also leads to another unbiblical practice. If there is indeed a saving, forgiving effect in baptism, then what are concerned Christian parents are going to want for their children?

To baptize them. And it’s in the second century that we begin to see infant baptism.

“If there is a saving, forgiving effect in baptism, then concerned Christian parents will want it for their children — and infant baptism begins.”

Now, while the church largely embraced this idea, some level of baptismal regeneration, it was a little bit slower to embrace infant baptism. Tertullian is one notable example. Living in the late second early third century. He argued against infant baptism. He said, “I know some people are wanting this, wanting to do this, but they need to believe first.

They need to actually understand before they get baptized.” But infant baptism would also become the established practice of the church and it comes from this idea of baptismal regeneration. Okay, this being the case, does this mean that the early church quickly fell into a gospel of faith plus works for salvation?

Well, no.

Because in apparent theological inconsistency, the early church also affirmed salvation by faith alone apart from works. And this is a little different than the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church today.

They’ll say other weird things about not salvation by faith alone. But this is what the early church taught. Yeah, you need baptism to be saved, but you also don’t need any other work besides you don’t need anything besides faith to be saved. To give you one example, here’s Jerome. Jerome in the 4th century. Two quotes. This much you must know that baptism forgives past sins, but it does not safeguard future justice which is preserved by labor and industry and diligence and depends always and above all on the mercy of God. Oo, that does not sound good. That sounds like somebody saying you’re going to have to add or not only does baptism forgive you, but you’re going to have to add stuff afterwards to be saved. But then here’s Jerome in another place. You have received by faith alone the Holy Spirit who is not received except by the righteous. Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Likewise also for you faith alone suffices as righteousness.

Early church teachers also conceded that believers could be saved without baptism if they sought baptism but died before they could receive it. So was the right itself necessary or was it only to change heart towards God? Here’s a summary of the early church situation from Dr. Nathan Bznitz. Actually, did I?

Yeah, here’s a summary from u Dr. Nathan Bnitz, professor at TMS about the understanding of baptism in the early church.

The church fathers insisted on the need for water baptism because they linked the physical act with the number of vital with a number of vital spiritual realities including regeneration, the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit based on their understanding of John 3:5. They regarded water baptism as necessary for salvation.

At the same time, they also stated that believers were saved by faith alone and that the forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit also came by faith alone. In part, this may be because they viewed baptism as the ceiling of faith. Thus, they viewed it as an extension of faith. It was considered a gift of God’s grace and not a self-righteous work. On the one hand, they recognized that it was possible in certain cases to be saved by faith alone without receiving water baptism. On the other hand, they seriously questioned the spiritual condition of anyone not willing to be baptized.

So, it’s not quite as dire of a situation in the early church as we might suspect. It’s still not right.

They still were in error. But it seems that generally the early church was holding to the true gospel even while this they had this inconsistency about baptismal regeneration.

Scripture Over Tradition

Now what about us? What stance should we take based on this fact of church history? Well, we ultimately stand with God breathed scriptures rather than imperfect church tradition. And this is what the Bible commands us to do.

Church tradition can be informative and helpful, but it is never authoritative.

“Church tradition can be informative and helpful, but it is never authoritative.”

And the exaltation of tradition to the level of ultimate authority, it is the great error of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Such not only leads to theological inconsistency, but also outright apostasy and really the condemnation of Jesus that he gave to the Pharisees in Matthew 15. Matthew 15:7-9.

You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.

We might also ask, how could the early church get it so wrong so quickly?

Didn’t have to wait till the early church period. Just look at the New Testament. You’ve got heresies. You’ve got serious problems in the church before the apostles even left. So why should we be too surprised if there were some big errors even after the apostles soon after the apostles were gone. Thank the Lord that they weren’t bigger than they were and he has been faithful to preserve his gospel throughout the generations.

All right, last question.

What Is the Argument for Infant Baptism?

What is the argument for infant baptism?

We talked about historically infant baptism appears to have emerged from baptismal regeneration and concerned parents be being wanting to do something for their kids. But today the practice of infant baptism has three fundamental supports and they are the prestige of the reformed tradition that is reformed theology that which emerged from the reformers and is held closely by Presbyterians and and a few others today. The connection between circumcision and baptism and the household baptisms in the book of acts. Briefly try and treat each one of these issues. First, the prestige of the reformed tradition.

As belief in the saving nature of baptism spread in the early church, so did the practice of infant baptism. By the end of the medieval period, infant baptism was firmly established as the standard practice in Christianity. The reformers in the 1500s, people like Calvin, Luther, Zwingley, they recaptured salvation by faith alone, but they largely retained infant baptism.

All three of those men were practitioners of infant baptism. Now, the reformers were right on so many other issues, and they contributed to a robust theological system that ties all parts of scripture and Christian doctrine together. So, could they really be wrong on baptism? Could the reformers be right on so many other issues, but not this one? Shouldn’t we trust them if we are grateful for many of their other pieces of theological heritage today?

But the response that we must give there is similar to what we said to the last question. While we do respect the reformers and many in reformed congregations today like Presbyterians and while we are grateful for the reformation and the theological contributions of those men in the past, we do not consider any tradition even the reformed tradition to be authoritative but must subject all theological traditions to examination by the scriptures.

“We do not consider any tradition, even the reformed tradition, to be authoritative but must subject all traditions to examination by the Scriptures.”

Besides, infant baptism is not the only theological tradition that has been handed down to the church. We had believers onlyly baptism in the early church before infant baptism spread. And also the anabaptists were a group that emerged in the reformation period who practiced believers baptism. Now there’s a whole bunch of flavors of Anabaptists.

Some of them were quite radical but some of them were right on and they got persecuted even by the reformers for holding to believers baptism.

The Circumcision-Baptism Connection

What is the reason that the reformers were fundamentally wrong on infant baptism? Largely it has to do with an improperly inferred connection between circumcision and baptism.

An argument from many reformed including the first reformers like Zwingley and Calvin is that circumcision was a physical sign of inclusion in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and in the blessing of those covenants.

This circumcision was also administered to children who could not and did not yet believe. But blessing on them would only be brought about when they did believe eventually.

The reformed would say Jesus new covenant and the new covenant sign works the same way. As the new covenant fulfills and supersedes the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants of the past, so does the new symbol of inclusion. Not circumcision but baptism. Just as circumcision was administered to children, so baptism also al also ought to be administered to the children of believers. And just as circumcision did not prove to bring God’s blessing to anyone except those who later were circumcised in heart, so baptism does not provide testimony of salvation or salvation blessing except for those who later come to faith. So you might say, why do it at all? Why not just wait until the children come to faith? Well, both circumcision and baptism mark out the children of God’s covenant people in those children’s obligations to receive and benefit from the different offered covenants. So by being brought in to the covenant community by this right, you recognize your obligation to believe and to obey and you in a kind of like fringe sense, you’re already experiencing some measure of that blessing of the covenant just by being part of the community. And there is at least one verse that seems to imply a connection between circumcision and baptism and that’s Colossians 2 11-12 which says and in him you are also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

“The reason the reformers were fundamentally wrong on infant baptism has to do with an improperly inferred connection between circumcision and baptism.”

Verse 12, 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.

Response to the Circumcision Argument

I know I’m kind of moving fast because I’m running out of time, but in Colossians 2:11, he talks about circumcision. In Colossians 2:12, he talks about baptism. And he says, “You’re you’re in Christ. You have the reality here. There’s apparently a link between circumcision and baptism.” But in response to this argument, we have to say that this connection is not justified between circumcision and baptism. This strict connection. There is some parallelism to be sure, but circumcision and baptism are not parallel in some important and obvious ways. For one, circumcision was only for males. Baptism is for male and females.

Number two, circumcision was a sign of a covenant for a singular ethnic people, the descendants of Abraham or the people of Israel. Baptism is a sign of covenant for a new people group of every ethnicity.

And most importantly, circumcision is commanded to be administered regardless of someone’s spiritual state. Whereas baptism is commanded to be administered, as we’ve seen, only to believers. That’s a pretty fundamental difference. So if they’re not parallel in these three important obvious ways, why do we assume that they ought to be parallel in every way and that they should both be given to children?

“Circumcision is administered regardless of spiritual state, whereas baptism is commanded only for believers — a fundamental difference.”

Also, the connection, the parallel in Colossians 2:1-12 is only apparent and not real because in context, Paul is defending the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ against those who are alleging that some sort of addition is needed to complete a Christian’s salvation such as something like circumcision. But Paul’s argument is look, you have the circumcision that’s made without hands and you were baptized into Christ. So actually he’s not saying anything about literal circumcision or literal baptism.

He’s asserting that they have something superior to either one of those things by belief in Christ. Colossians 2:10 and you have been made complete and he is the head of overall rule and authority.

So this is not really saying anything about a necessary connection between a covenant sign between circumcision and baptism.

Really the circumcision baptism connection is as a necessary support for infant baptism.

It’s an inference from a theological system rather than from the teaching of scripture.

“The circumcision-baptism connection is an inference from a theological system rather than from the teaching of Scripture.”

The Household Baptisms in Acts

Finally, there’s the Bible’s baptisms of whole households.

I’m going to have to move more summary fashion here. There are a few passages in the book of Acts that describe the baptism of apparently a whole household.

Acts 16 16:15 the household of Lydia and Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer’s household pabatist those who hold to infant baptism they make two assumptions in interpreting passages like these that the baptized households must have included children and that these children must have been incapable of saving faith yet they were baptized along believing adults. The necessary conclusion is that we have a pattern of infant baptism demonstrated in the book of acts.

The response to this is these assumptions about children in these household passages are unjustified. The texts do not say whether there are children in these households. And if there are children, they don’t say what the cha what the ages are or whether these children are capable of saving faith. Should note that in that culture and context, a household did not only refer to blood family members, but also to usually adult slaves and dependent servants who lived in the house. So the Bible could be speaking of these other household members when it refers to those who were baptized. And even if these households did include extremely young children incapable of faith, it does not follow that these children were necessarily baptized because just as today we might say, “Oh, salvation came to this family or and maybe you’re testifying about your own family. We came to know Christ at a particular time.” Not necessarily saying that even your babies and toddlers came to know Christ at that time. You’re just talking about your family generally with the obvious exception of those who cannot practice faith. In the same way it may be the Bible speaks of households that included children but who were not meant to be reported as saved and baptized in the family’s general description. But we can note that when the Bible does give more information about a saved household, it usually emphasizes that the whole household believed and that’s why they were baptized. Don’t have time now, but if you look at what the Bible says about the conversion of Cornelius and those with him, it says he feared God with his whole household and he gathered his relatives and friends when Peter came by and when they heard the message, they believed and then they were all baptized.

“The household passages in Acts actually support believers baptism rather than infant baptism.”

So the whole household, his relatives and friends, they were baptized because they believed. Or Acts 16:31-34 the passage about the Philippian jailer it says in verse 31 believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved you and your household verse 32 immediately he was baptized he and his whole household and then verse 34 he rejoiced greatly having believed in God with his whole household so we get further description there that household they believed and that’s why they were baptized In Acts 18:8, it mentions Christmas household, he believed in the Lord with all his household.

Conclusion

And though it doesn’t say specifically he was baptized, later in the verse, it says many of the Corinthians when they heard and were believing were being baptized. So it is possible for a whole household to believe or at least those who are capable of belief. And so those are the ones that the Bible implies were baptized. The household passages in the book of Acts, they actually support believers baptism rather than infant baptism. So in conclusion, though we respect and tolerate our true brethren who hold to infant baptism, this is not a biblically supported doctrine and it only sends a confusing message to children and to the church regarding salvation.

“Though we respect our true brethren who hold to infant baptism, this is not a biblically supported doctrine.”

Okay, I’ve gone over time just a tiny bit. I know that was fast. If you want to talk with me afterwards to clarify anything or to ask further questions, I’m definitely open for that or you can send an email. But that is it for this week. Next week we move on to our next topic which will be church government and church discipline. Often controversial, sometimes confusing. So I think that will be a valuable examination.

But let me close in a word of prayer.

Thank you God for your Bible’s clear teaching.

Lord, we thank you that salvation is indeed by no work, not even by baptism.

Yet, God, we are so glad to testify of the work that you have wholly done on your own without our contribution in something like the symbol of baptism.

You’re the one who caused us to die with Christ, to be buried with Christ, and to rise with Christ. And you’re the one who caused us to be joined to Christ and his people.

Lord, we are glad to give that testimony. And so we do thank you for the symbol of baptism. Lord, please bless the rest of the service today.

Those who are here in person and those who can only attend online in Jesus name.

Share this sermon:

More from Defending Doctrinal Distinctives