"A11d take ...

the s1vord
of tile Spirit
1vltich is the zvord of God."
f· Pllf·t.,l A:\~ h 17

THEME OF THIS ISSUE:

BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Volume 25 January 1994 No.2
 ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE
1 EDITORIAL ........................................................... Alan E. Highers
Baptism in the New Testament
4 Who Can Be Baptized? .................................................. Basil Overton
7 The "How" of Baptism ............................................... Hugo McCord
14 ASSOCIATE EDITORIAL ....................................................Jim Laws
Baptism and Conversion
19 The One Baptism ........................................................... David Pharr
23 Is Baptism Essential to Salvation?............................ Roy H. Lanier, Jr.
26 Does Grace Nullify Baptism for the
Remission of Sins? ......................................... William Woodson
30 False Concepts of Baptism............................................ Wayne Jackson
34 What Is Faith? ....................................................... Winford Claiborne
38 The Case of the Thief ............................................... Wendell Winkler
41 Acts 2:38—A Textual Study ................................. Thomas B. Warren
45 Guy N. Woods: A Tribute
47 The "Lordship Salvation" Controversy
48 Report of the 1993 Lectureship

THE SPIRITUAL SWORD

USPS 765-120
Volume 25, Number 2, January, 1994
Alan E. Highers, Editor
Jim Laws, Associate Editor

Published quarterly by the Getwell Church of Christ, 1511 Getwell Rd., Memphis, TN 38111.
Phone (901) 743-0464. Fax (901) 743-2197. Second-class postage paid at Memphis, TN and
additional Post Offices.
Address subscriptions and business correspondence to Getwell Church of Christ. POST-
MASTER: Send address changes to: THE SPIRITUAL SWORD, Getwell Church of Christ, 1511
Getwell Road, Memphis, TN 38111. Address editorial matter to Alan E. Highers, P.O. Box 263,
Henderson, TN 38340.
MOVING? The Post Office will not forward your copy. Please notify us of your change of
address.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICES: Single copies $1.25 each, or $5.00 per year. Bundles to same
address: 25 copies-$25.00; 50 copies-$45.00; 100 copies-$80.00. Congregational rate (mailed
to members' addresses) $4.00 per member per year. A check must accompany your order.
 Baptism in the New Testament

C hurches of Christ have stood almost alone in the religious world on the subject of
water baptism. We have insisted that immersion to a penitent believer is essential to
salvation from past sins. Because of this conviction we have been charged with dis-
regarding or nullifying the grace of God, teaching salvation by works, advocating
baptismal regeneration, and denying the protestant theology of justification by faith
only. Whereas we have emphasized baptism as a condition of salvation, protestant
denominationalism has promoted the theory that baptism is simply a "sign" or
"symbol" of the salvation which one has previously received through faith alone.

A Doctrine of Recent Origin

What many people do not recognize is that churches of Christ are advocating the
ancient view of baptism, dating back to the first century and continuing almost unabated
until the time of the protestant reformation. Jack Cottrell has pointed out:
The understanding of baptism as the time when God bestows salvation was the nearly
unanimous view in Christendom for nearly fifteen hundred years. It was a consensus shared
by the early church fathers, Catholic theology in the Middle Ages, and Martin Luther. The
"other" view, the one that now prevails, was the creation of Huldreich Zwingli in the decade
of the 1520's. It was adopted by his followers, including John Calvin; and mainly through the
latter's influence was spread throughout the bulk of Protestantism. Thus the "sign and seal"
concept of baptism is the newcomer, the usurper. We should have no qualms about aban-
doning a view whose roots go back no further than Zwingli.1

It was Zwingli—through John Calvin—who influenced the teaching of most modern

denominations on the subject of baptism, leading them astray from the historic biblical
position and culminating in what is now the majority view which rejects the essentiality
of baptism to salvation. Cottrell has stated: "This, then, is the essence of baptism
according to the Reformed tradition. It is the view commonly found today in Pres-
byterian and Reformed denominations, in Baptist and Mennonite groups, in the
Wesleyan tradition (e.g., Methodists, Nazarenes), and indeed in most of Protestan-
tism."2 Most adherents to this view would be surprised to learn that it is not only
younger than biblical times, but that it is scarcely five hundred years old.
When men began to enunciate the restoration principle (the idea that we can go back
to the biblical pattern and reproduce scriptural teaching and practice today), one of the
characteristics of this effort was to emphasize baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts
2:38). There was a determination to lay aside human creeds and denominational dogmas
and to "speak where the Bible speaks" (I Pet. 4:11). If one reads the Bible, apart from

1
preconceived ideas and theological biases, he cannot fail to see that baptism was a part
of conversion. Look at the conversion stories in the book of Acts and note the presence
of baptism in each case! Yet, as Cottrell has noted, "The tragedy is that many in this very
movement [to restore the biblical pattern] have begun to doubt its validity and are
espousing and proclaiming the Zwinglian heresy instead."3 The influence of Zwingli
and Calvin upon the religious world has been very great indeed.

The Biblical View

Notwithstanding the theological systems of men, however, the teaching of the scrip-
tures is clear. In passage after passage, where baptism and salvation are both men-
tioned, baptism invariably comes first. In Mark 16:16, Jesus said: "He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Notice the divine
order: (1) Belief, (2) Baptism, (3) Salvation. If we are first saved, and then baptized (as
most denominations teach), is it not strange that neither Jesus nor any inspired writer
ever had the correct order? In every instance, the biblical writers placed baptism before
salvation.
The scholars in denominationalism have had a particularly difficult time in explaining
Peter's statement on Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2:38. On that day the inquiring
multitude had cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter responded with a
command: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Consider the
following: (1) It is unquestionably true that the multitude wanted to know what to do to
be saved. Peter had just charged them with the crucifixion of the Son of God (v. 36). (2)
The answer given in response to their question was twofold: repent and be baptized.
They were not told merely to repent, but rather to "repent, and be baptized." (3) The
command given by the apostle Peter on this occasion was not his own; it was issued "in
the name of Jesus Christ." (4) If there could be any doubt at all about why they were told
to repent and be baptized, Peter resolved it by stating it was "for the remission of sins."
(5) Three thousand souls gladly accepted the message and were baptized (v. 41).
The foregoing scene is so vivid, and the inspired instruction of the apostle Peter is so
explicit, that it is a wonder the Zwingli/Calvin position has endured. But it has not
endured because of Acts 2:38; it has endured in spite of Acts 2:38! Gallons of ink and reams
of paper have been expended to defend the "symbolic" understanding of baptism and to
"explain away" the clear instruction of Peter in Acts 2:38. Most of these efforts have
centered around the expression: "for the remission of sins." What does it mean? W. E.
Vine says the expression is "used of the forgiveness of sins."4 Thus, the case grows
stronger. Peter instructed the inquiring multitude to "repent, and be baptized . . . for
the forgiveness of sins." What could be clearer? Sinners asked what to do, and an
inspired apostle told them to repent and be baptized and stated that it was for the
forgiveness of sins! Who, then, pray tell, has the right or the authority to tell sinners that
baptism is not essential to the forgiveness of sins? Yet, since the days of Zwingli and
Calvin in the 1500"s, denominational ministers have been telling sinners just the op-
posite of what Peter distinctly and categorically stated on the day of Pentecost. And how
has this been justified? Because, we are told, the little word for (eis in the Greek) in Acts
2:38 means "because of," that is, sinners were to repent and be baptized because they
were already saved, not in order to be saved! So, Peter's declaration on the day of Pentecost
should be understood as follows: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the

i
name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins you already possess." Will this idea
stand the test of truth? Let us see.

For the Remission of Sins

First, consider the context. Peter had just convicted these hearers of the crucifixion of
Christ—"that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified" (v. 36). They immediately cried out,
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" The "symbolic" view of baptism would have us
believe they were already saved and that Peter told them to repent and be baptized
because they were already saved. Does that explanation fit the context? What do you
think?
Second, remember the twofold command. They were told to "repent" and "be baptized." If
"for the remission of sins" means "because of the remission of sins," and therefore
renders baptism unnecessary and non-essential, would it not have the same effect on
the command to repent? The same people were given the same commands at the same
time for the same purpose. If baptism is not necessary to salvation, we can also forget
about repentance.
Third, look at the same expression elsewhere. Since inquiring souls on Pentecost were told
to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins," is there some other occurrence of
this phrase that we might examine for comparison? Yes, it is found in Matthew 26:28 in
connection with the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said, "For this is my blood of
the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Now, Jesus said
his blood is shed for many "for the remission of sins." Does that make the blood of
Christ non-essential? It is the same phrase (in both English and Greek) which is used in
Acts 2:38 in reference to repentance and baptism.
Fourth, examine how eis (the Greek preposition translated for) is used with other requirements
for salvation. In Romans 10:10, it is said "with the heart man believeth unto (eis) right-
eousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto (eis) salvation." Please note that
this is the same preposition which is used in Acts 2:38 with repentance and baptism—
"for (eis) the remission of sins." Does it still mean "because of"—man believes because of
righteousness, and he confesses because of salvation? Let us be fair in studying the
scriptures. If we are going to rule out the essentiality of baptism, based on the meaning
of the word for (Greek eis), then must we not also rule out belief, repentance, confession,
and even the blood of Christ for salvation? Is it not obvious that there is theological
intolerance toward Peter's teaching that baptism is for the remission of sins?
Fifth, take note of what denominational scholars have said. In July 1877 the Baptist Quarterly
published an article by J. W. Willmarth, a prominent Baptist minister and scholar,
entitled "Baptism and Remission." In this article he sought to warn and admonish his
own brethren regarding their claim that for (or eis) means "because of." Dr. Willmarth
strongly urged that eis means "in order to," not "because of" (that is, it looked forward
rather than backward, meaning that baptism is in order to the remission of sins, not
because of). He stated: "Everything unites to render a mistake as to the force of eis
almost impossible. Everything compels us to assign to it its obvious, natural, distinctive
meaning, as used to denote the purpose of actions." Further, he quoted from the noted
Baptist commentator, H. B. Hackett, to this effect: "This clause states the motive or
object which should induce them to repent and be baptized." It is a pity that the
scholarly admonitions of Drs. Willmarth and Hackett did not prevail. Their re-
monstrances, if heeded, might have aimed their brethren toward the biblical ideal of
baptism "for the remission of sins."

3
 Conclusion
There is no question that salvation is by grace through faith (Tit. 2:11-12; Rom. 5:1).
The question is not whether we are saved by grace through faith, but when? Are we saved
by grace through faith only? James said that "faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:26).
Or are we saved by grace through faith when that faith works by love (Gal. 5:6)? Salvation
is by an active, obedient faith, and gospel obedience includes baptism for the remission
of sins.
—EDITOR

ENDNOTES
1 Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical Study (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989), p. 166.
2Jack Cottrell, "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition," Baptism and the Remission of Sins,
David W. Fletcher, ed. (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990), p. 73.
3 Ibid.
4 W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, IA, n.d.), p. 947.

Who Can Be Baptized?

Basil Overton

ecause of what something that seems to be little and un-

is written in the
New Testament
about baptism in
water, everyone who
has not been bap-
tized as taught in
that sacred volume
should do every-
thing necessary to
learn who can be baptized in the way the
Lord Jesus Christ requires.
Many people, including great numbers
of religious people, think of water bap-
tism as being a relatively unimportant
matter, and as being such a little thing it
should not be a cause of concern. How-
ever, throughout the Bible it is clearly
taught and demonstrated that God often
tested the faith of people with something
they did not think was important. God
may test the faith of people more with
important, than he does with what may
seem to them to be big and significant.
Baptism and Salvation
The question "Who can be baptized?"
is important because the New Testament
teaches that baptism in water is essential
to salvation from sin. If it is not essential,
it is a waste of time to ask the question
and to answer it.
In the New Testament there are six
verses in each of which water baptism
and salvation are mentioned together. In
every one of these verses, baptism is first
and salvation follows. These verses are:
Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38;
Acts 22:16; and I Peter 3:21. There are also
many other passages which teach that
baptism precedes salvation from sin.

4
 How Some Have Answered
the Question
Who can be baptized? Some have an-
swered this question by saying that only
those who are already the children of
God can be baptized. They say Jesus set
the example for everyone in his baptism.
They say that because Jesus was already
God's Son before he was baptized, that
this means that before being baptized
everyone must be a son of God. The same
people say that everyone is to get for-
giveness of his sins before being bap-
tized, instead of being baptized in order
to get forgiveness or remission of sins.
Those who say these things are inconsis-
tent because Jesus was not baptized be-
cause he had been forgiven, for he had no
sins to be forgiven! Neither was Jesus
baptized in order to be forgiven, for the
same reason.
Jesus was baptized to fulfil all righ-
teousness, but he was not baptized be-
cause he had already been saved, nor in
order to be saved from sins. Since he was
baptized to fulfil all righteousness, he
would not have done right in the sight of
his Father in heaven, if he had refused to
be baptized, and therefore would have
done wrong in not being baptized.
In his handbook for members of the
Baptist Church, J. T. Odle says there are
four things necessary before one can be
baptized scripturally. These are: (1) one
must be a saved person; (2) a church of
the Lord Jesus Christ must authorize it;
(3) one must be baptized to show he has
already been saved; and (4) it must be by
immersion. He says any so-called bap-
tism that is not preceded by these four
things is unscriptural.1
Already in this article I have presented
abundant New Testament evidence that
the first of Mr. Odle's items is wrong,
because of the scriptures which say one is
to be baptized in order to be saved by the
blood of Christ.
The second of Mr. Odle's items is
5
wrong because the Bible does not teach
that a church must authorize baptism.
The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ au-
thorizes baptism. He said, "All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap-
tizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teach-
ing them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen" (Matt. 28:18-20). The word
power in the above is the translation of
Greek exousia which means authority, and
is so translated in the New King James
Version, the American Standard Version,
and other versions.
Mr. Odle's third prerequisite to baptism
is wrong because nowhere in the New
Testament is it said that when people
were baptized they showed, by being
baptized, they were saved before being
baptized. Instead they were baptized in
order to be saved!
Mr. Odle's fourth item is absolutely
true. Baptism is immersion. This means it
is not performed by sprinkling or pouring
a little water on someone. This was begun
a long time after the New Testament was
completed.
Can Infants Be Baptized?
Infants do not need to be baptized, be-
cause baptism as taught in the New Testa-
ment is a condition of salvation from sin
committed before becoming a Christian.
Infants have no sins. They do not inherit
sin (Ezek. 18:20). They cannot commit sin,
for sin is the transgression of God's law
(I Jn. 3:4) and infants cannot do this. Sin
is not inherited, it is committed. God is
the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9). If a
baby is born a sinner, his spirit that came
from God is sinful. To say this is true
would be blasphemy against the Father of
our spirits!
If infants were supposed to be baptized
it would not be proper to sprinkle or pour
a little water on them and call it baptism.
Alexander Campbell was one of the
greatest Bible scholars since the Bible was
completed. He did an enormous amount
of research on many subjects. He said
King James of England gave commands
or instructions to the translators of the
King James Version of the Bible not to
translate some words. He based his trea-
tise on this on Lewis' History of the En-
glish Bible. He said of these commands of
King James, "They are here inserted to
show (what is little known) that King
James actually forbade the translators of
the Bible to translate the words baptism
and baptize, and that these words accord-
ingly were not translated by them."2
Campbell very much regretted that these
words were not translated by the King
James translators.
Baptism and baptize are Anglicized
forms of the Greek words baptismos and
baptize This means they were not trans-
lated, but instead were transliterated,
which means they were put in English
without their roots or stems being
changed. Had these words been trans-
lated they would be immersion and im-
merse. If they had been translated in the
King James version and in all versions of
the Bible as they should have been,
doubtless there would not have been so
much controversy over whether baptism
was immersion or sprinkling.
Alexander Campbell presented indis-
putable evidence that King James did not
allow baptismos and baptizo to be trans-
lated because the Church of England, of
which he was the head, was practicing
sprinkling for baptism, and that to trans-
late the words into immersion and immerse
would have created chaos in that church.
King James was head of that church.3
Campbell made it clear that the King
James translators knew the meaning of
baptismos because they translated forms of
this word dipped as in John 13:26; Mat-
thew 26:23; and Revelation 19:13.4
The New Testament was translated into
6
many languages soon after it was com-
pleted. The eminent historian and Bible
scholar, James Smith, says most of the
New Testament was translated into Latin
before the end of the first century.5
The Peshito Syriac version of the New
Testament was done in the second cen-
tury. There are many other early transla-
tions. Of these many early translations
Alexander Campbell wrote the following:
Not one of the ancient versions uses a
word indicative of sprinkling or pouring
water on a person, in order to his Chris-
tian baptism; but all concur in the choice
of a term intimating immersion, dip-
ping, or plunging a person, if any allu-
sion be made to the form of the action.6
Campbell cites many of the world's
greatest scholars and authoritative lexi-
cographers and shows not one of them
translated baptismos or any of its forms
with the words sprinkle or pour. On this he
wrote the following:
We have, then, the unanimous testi-
mony of all the distinguished lexicogra-
phers known in Europe and America,
that the proper and everywhere current
signification of baptizo, the word chosen
by Jesus Christ in his commission to the
apostles, is to dip, plunge, or immerse.7
In his book on Baptism, Alexander
Campbell wrote 122 pages in which he
gave abundant evidence that infant bap-
tism is not taught in the New Testament.
These pages are packed with great
wisdom, and persuasive arguments and
evidences which show infant baptism is
not acceptable to our Savior.8
Reasons Why Infants Should Not
Be Baptized
Even if sprinkling and pouring were
baptism, it would not be proper to bap-
tize infants for many reasons, some of
which follow:
1. The Bible does not say infants were
baptized.
 2. Those who administer what they
call infant baptism say they do it in the
names of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, but neither of these three
persons of Deity authorizes it.
3. The will of an infant cannot be in-
volved in its being sprinkled for baptism.
4. To be scripturally baptized one must
first hear and believe the gospel of Jesus
Christ (Mk. 16:15, 16; Acts 2:41) and thus
be convicted of sin (Acts 2:36, 37) and
then repent or turn from sin (Acts 2:38)
and confess faith in Christ as the Son of
God (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9, 10). An infant
can do none of these.
"Then were brought unto him little
children, that he should put his hands on
them, and pray; and the disciples re-
buked them" (Matt. 19:13). Some have
used (misused) this scripture to justify
what they call infant baptism. However,
there is no water in this text; not even
enough to sprinkle even one drop on an
infant. Some of the same people who in-
terpret this text to have water in it, say
there is no water in John 3:5 where Jesus
said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Ex-
The "How" of Baptism
Hugo McCord
M ost people do
not
Greek, and if a
know
knowledge of that
language is neces-
sary to know how to
baptize, most people
are helpless. Thank
God, the Bible in
t r a n s l a t i o n s is so
clear that one does not need to know one
word of Greek to understand exactly the
7
cept a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God." Jesus referred here to the baptism
that is a burial in water by which people
get into Christ which is equated in the
New Testament with getting into his
kingdom which is his church.
ENDNOTES
1 Joe T. Odle, Church Member's Handbook,
(Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1962),
p. 22.
2 Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist,
(Vol. II, November, 1824). Begin on page 75.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 James Smith, History of the Church, (1835),
p. 58.
6 Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptism
With Its Antecedents and Consequents, (1851),
p. 134.
7 Op. Cit., pages 126, 127.
8 Op. Cit., pages 313-435.
Basil Overton is editor of The World Evan-
gelist, a monthly publication with a sound, bibli-
cal emphasis (P. O. Box 2279. Florence, Alabama
35630).
"how" of baptism: (1) "much water" was
required (Jn. 3:23); (2) the one asking to
be baptized went "to" the water (Matt.
3:13); (3) both the candidate and the bap-
tizer "went down into the water" (Acts
8:38); (4) the candidate was "buried" (Col.
2:12); (5) the buried person was "raised"
(Col. 2:12); (6) then the one now baptized
and the baptizer "came up out of the
water" (Acts 8:39).
No foreign language is needed. The
"how" of baptism is clear. But millions of
good people are taught that the "how" of
baptism is optional: sprinkling or pouring
or immersion. Ask Jesus if the "how" is
optional. He said, "I have a baptism with
which to be baptized, and what stress I
am under until it is completed!" (Lk.
12:50, NRV). This is called his "baptism of
suffering." Did he "who endured the
cross, despising the shame" (Heb. 12:2),
undergo a sprinkling or a pouring or an
immersion of suffering?
The dictionary says that the noun
"baptism" (from the Greek baptismos)
means "that which is dipped," and that
the word now is used to mean either
"sprinkling" or "dipping." But if the Bible
does not use it that way, we are in trouble.
Harry W. Dahlstrom, 35 Wells Road, West
Hartford, Conn. 06107, a devout Lutheran
for 39 years, serving as a deacon, choir
member, Sunday School teacher, and a
department superintendent, now simply
a Christian, has published "A LETTER
TO LUTHERANS" out "of deep concern
for the souls of human beings," in which
he says:
The true test of any translated word is
to interchange it with the original word
wherever used. If you will try this, you
will readily see that sprinkling and pour-
ing cannot be interchanged with bap-
tism, whereas immersion can be (p. 5).
Is Harry correct? He invites us to try
his test:
John "saw many" coming "to his bap-
tism" (Matt. 3:7)—to his sprinkling? his
pouring? his immersion?
"We were buried" through "baptism"
(Rom. 6:4)—sprinkling, pouring, or im-
mersion?
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism"
(Eph. 4:5)—sprinkling, pouring, or im-
mersion?
Harry continues:
You can immerse a person, but you
cannot pour him or sprinkle him with-
out first dissolving his body into a
liquid.
8
Anders Nygren, a bishop of Harry's
former church, has written:
He who is baptized is immersed in
the water. . . . Lutheran pastors would
likely refuse a request for baptism by
immersion lest they appear to approve
that method as the only correct one.
After Harry quoted the bishop's words,
he wrote:
To protect that error [sprinkling], they
reject the one method, immersion, that
everyone agrees was the only New Testa-
ment practice (pp., 5, 12).
Another Lutheran priest, Nils Berg-
strom, has written in German: "Dopa
och doppa ar ursprungligen samma ord,"
which Harry translates to mean: "Baptize
and dip were originally the same word."
Despite the fact that Martin Luther
was sprinkled, his integrity in scholarship
made him write:
Taufe is called in Greek baptismos, in
Latin, Mersio; that is, when they im-
merse something entirely into the water,
which goes altogether over it (cited by
Harry, p. 4).
Attempted Justifications
for Sprinkling
My Methodist grandfather refused my
overture to him to be immersed by citing
part of Matthew 3:11 in the KJV. He in-
terpreted the passage to say, "I indeed
sprinkle you with water." But his in-
terpretation falls flat when his word
"sprinkle" is injected into the rest of the
verse: "sprinkle you with the Holy Ghost
and with fire."
Then, to remove the word "with" and
insert "in" (as in the ASV), my grand-
father would not like "sprinkle you in
water" or "in the Holy Ghost" or "in fire."
Now let us use Harry Dahlstrom's test
(interchanging words): (1) "sprinkle you
in water," or "sprinkle you in the Holy
Ghost," or "sprinkle you in fire"; (2)
"pour you in water," or "pour you in the
Holy Ghost," or "pour you in fire"; and
(3) "immerse you in water," or "immerse
you in the Holy Ghost," or "immerse you
in fire." It appears then that, all things
considered, John was speaking of three
immersions: one in water, one in the Holy
Ghost, and one in fire.
However, advocates of sprinkling and
pouring (called affusionists) turn to Psalm
77:17, "the clouds poured out water," and
apply it to the baptism of the Israelites in
their passage through the Red Sea (I Cor.
10:2).
But there is no way to connect Psalm
77:17 to the Red Sea passage. First, that
on which the Israelites walked through
the sea was "dry ground" (Ex. 14:21-22).
No clouds "poured out water." Second,
clouds (plural) were not over the Israel-
ites, but only one cloud and it was a
"fiery pillar" in their night-time crossing
(Ex. 13:22; 14:21, 24; Deut. 16:1).
Better Bible expositors would see the
probability of a connection between Psalm
77:17 and the encampment of the Israel-
ites at Mt. Sinai when there was "plentiful
rain" (Ps. 68:8-9). Another probability is
a connection between Psalm 77:17 and
Barak's and Deborah's song of rejoicing
in the rout of the Canaanites when "the
clouds dropped water" (Jgs. 5:4).
Affusionists turn to Isaiah's prediction
that Jesus would "sprinkle many nations"
(52:15). If Isaiah meant that Jesus would
sprinkle people with water, the New Testa-
ment fails to tell of it. However, it does
tell of people's hearts being sprinkled
with Christ's blood and of their bodies
being "washed," not sprinkled, "with
pure water" (Heb. 10:22; 12:24; I Pet. 1:2).
The context of Isaiah's "sprinkle" (nazah,
sprinkle, spurt, spatter) points to Jesus'
astonishing his listeners with his teach-
ing, the like of which they had never
heard, and was shocking, like water
thrown on a face. The NRS removes the
word "sprinkle" in favor of "startle":
So he shall startle many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of
9
him; for that which had not been told
them they shall see, and that which
they had not heard they shall contem-
plate.
The LXX in Isaiah 52:15 has:
So will many nations marvel at him,
and kings will shut their mouths be-
cause of him, because what things that
had not been announced about him
they will see, and what they had not
heard they will understand.
Jesus did not startle people by sprin-
kling water on them, but when he had
finished a sermon, "the multitudes were
astonished at his teaching" (Matt. 7:28-29).
"Where did this man get this wisdom?"
(Matt. 13:54).
Temple policemen, sent to arrest Jesus,
made the mistake of listening to one of
his lessons, and were so shocked they
walked away without their prisoner, and
reported to their superiors, "Never has
anyone spoken like this" (Jn. 7:46). They
did not know that Isaiah 52:15 was be-
ing fulfilled. If Jesus had been sprinkling
water on people they would not have
been so shocked.
Affusionists attempt to justify their
practice by God's promise, "I will sprinkle
clean water upon you" (Ezek. 36:25). This
was a promise made in 570 B.C., not to
anyone living today, but to some Jewish
exiles in Babylon, a prophecy fulfilled in
536 B.C. when Cyrus allowed them to re-
turn to Palestine (Ezra l:lf). The "clean
water" was lye water (it had been run
through the ashes of a red heifer, Num.
19:1-20). No pastor today would apply
that alkaline solution to a baby's head, or
to an older person's head.
Affusionists turn to an angel's instruct-
ing Philip to go to "the way that goeth
down from Jerusalem unto Gaza" (Acts
8:26, KJV). They assert that immersion is
ruled out because of the desert.
Grammatically, Luke's words could re-
fer either to "the way" or to "Gaza." The
NAS has "this is a desert road," but in its
margin has "this city is deserted."
Geographically, the road is not through
a desert until beyond Gaza on the way to
Egypt. Between Jerusalem and Gaza the
road passes through villages, pastures,
and cultivated fields. Moses' spies found
grapes, pomegranates, and figs growing
in that area (Num. 13:23). Pools and
streams are there, and Luke wrote about
"a certain water" along the way (Acts
8:36).
Historically, there were two Gazas.
"Old Gaza" (as Diodorus Siculus called it)
was built on a mound about two and a
half miles from the Mediterranean Sea. In
93 B.C. it was "utterly overthrown" by
Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, ANTIQ-
UITIES 13, 13, 3), and in A.D. 32 it was "a
posting-station on the Ethiopian's way
home" (Blaiklock, Acts).
In 57 B.C., Pompey's general Rulus
Gabinius built a new Gaza on the coast as
a seaport for the Romans. The Ethiopian,
not seaborne, "had no occasion to pass
through the seaport" (Blaiklock). Some
ancient writers confused the two Gazas,
but not Luke. Neither did Strabo, a first
century geographer, who wrote of Gaza
polls menousa eremos, "the city remaining
deserted." Another Greek geographer
wrote of he eremos Gaza, "the deserted
Gaza" (Blaiklock).
It is clear then that the angel did not
instruct Philip to travel the road to the
new Gaza, but the road which led by the
abandoned Gaza. If the Ethiopian asked,
"What hinders me from being sprin-
kled?", even a chariot canteen would
have been sufficient. But if he asked,
"What hinders me from being immer-
sed?", then a pool was needed that both
Philip and the Ethiopian might go down
into the water and, after the immersion,
to come up out of the water (Acts 8:36-39).
An affusionist in a public debate, having
to surrender his "desert" argument on
Acts 8:26, then asserted that Jesus could
not have been immersed, because the Jor-
dan River is so shallow and narrow a man
10
could dam it up with his foot. J. D. Tant
replied, "I would go farther to see that
man's foot than the river, for the Jordan is
80 to 150 feet wide and 6 to 9 feet deep."
Historical Developments
A study of the "how" of baptism would
include scarce references to purification
rites in the Qumram community down by
the Jordan. The Dead Sea Scrolls point to
immersion:
No one is to go into water to attain the
purity of holy men. For men cannot be
purified except they repent of their evil
(MANUAL OF DISCIPLINE, 1QS 5:13,
cited by BROOKSIDE BULLETIN, Feb.
29, 1968).
Let no man bathe in water that is dirty
or less than the quantity that covers
a man (DAMASCUS DOCUMENT, CD
10:11, cited by BROOKSIDE BULLETIN,
Feb. 29, 1968).
Christian baptistries in the catacombs
are dated from the first to the fourth cen-
turies.
When imperial persecution drove the
Christians underground, baptistries
were constructed in the catacombs at
Rome. The remains of these baptistries
stand as the oldest archaeological wit-
ness to the rite of Christian baptism . . .
The baptistries in the catacombs of
Sain Priscilla and Sain Callixtus also
received water through canals, while
those in the catacombs of the Vatican
and Saint Alexander were fed by natural
springs. . . .
Sixty-five baptistries have been found
in Italy alone, circular, octagonal, square,
twelve-sided. All sixty-five were con-
structed for baptism by immersion (Prof.
George E. Rice, MINISTRY, March, 1981,
cited by FIRM FOUNDATION, June 30,
1981, p. 8).
On the inside of the Ekero church
building, outside Stockholm, Sweden, is
"a baptistry font from that time when
immersion was still practiced" (Harry
Dahlstrom, p. 4).
 The Byzantine of Horvat Shivta, also
known as Subeita, rests in the Negeb in
a region receiving only marginal rain-
fall, yet one of the church buildings has
a baptistry clearly designed for immer-
sion (see "Subeita" in EAEHL). If sprin-
kling or pouring were understood as
proper alternative modes of baptism, it
would seem that with water at such a
premium, this site would have adopted
that mode of baptism (Dale W. Manor,
GOSPEL ADVOCATE, Oct., 1991, p. 30).
The change to sprinkling came as early
as the second century. "Clinical bap-
tisms" were administered "to the babe a
day old, to the sick and dying" (J. W.
Shepherd, HANDBOOK ON BAPTISM,
195). In A.D. 251 Novation "in apprehen-
sion of death" received in bed "the bap-
tismus clinicorun" (Neander, CHURCH
HISTORY I, 325, cited by Shepherd, 204,
213-214).
In 753 Pope Stephen III ruled that "in
cases of necessity . . . pouring water on
the head" was acceptable (EDINBURGH
CYCLOPEDIA III, 245-246, cited by Shep-
herd, 196). In 1311 the Roman Catholic
Council at Ravenna voted that either im-
mersion or sprinkling was acceptable, but
the Greek Church "universally" held to
immersion (John Cunningham, THE
GROWTH OF THE CHURCH, 190-191,
cited by Shepherd, 196).
"The 'how' of baptism is clear. But
millions of good people are taught
that the 'how' of baptism is op-
tional: sprinkling or pouring or
immersion."
In 1384 John Wycliffe, when he trans-
lated Jerome's Latin Vulgate into English,
did not translate baptisma, but simply
made it an English word, "baptism,"
without giving its meaning. By that time
1I
sprinkling had taken over, and it was
called "baptism."
In 1525 William Tyndale went back of
Wycliffe's "baptism" and back of Jerome's
baptisma to the Greek baptidzo and trans-
lated it "immerse." His translation was
banned in England. "The Bishops' Burn
the Bible Fund" paid Englishmen to turn
in copies of Tyndale's translation to be
burned. Tyndale in exile prayed that the
Lord would open the eyes of the King of
England.
To prepare for the 1611 King James
Bible, the king ordered his 54 scholars to
use the word "baptism," and specifically
charged them not to use Tyndale's "im-
mersion" (cited by Alexander Campbell,
CHRISTIAN BAPTIST II, 4, Nov. 1, 1824;
cited also by Jack Lewis, THE ENGLISH
BIBLE FROM KJV TO NIV, 63). The king's
scholars did not suffer under his coer-
cion, for all had been sprinkled. But their
leaving baptidzo untranslated has caused
millions of people not to know the "how"
of baptism. Just as after 1311 sprinkling
uprooted immersion, so after 1611 the
non-committal, cover-up word "baptism"
has dominated the English speaking
world.
In 1826 Alexander Campbell published
his LIVING ORACLES, using "immer-
sion" instead of "baptism." Many restora-
tion preachers rejoiced. Among them,
"Raccoon" John Smith began using the
LIVING ORACLES in his preaching, and
announced that "baptize is a foreign
word," and that he would no longer
translate it in the pulpit, for "as not many
of you have the gift of tongues, or of
interpretation, I am resolved to speak to
you in Greek no more." In 1831 another
restoration preacher wrote, "It is an insult
to the Holy Spirit to require his truth to be
concealed from men to accommodate sec-
tarian views."
The American Bible Society has voted
never to print a Bible translation into
any language that does not allow the
reader to choose either sprinkling,
 pouring, or immersion as the method of
baptizing. The American Bible Society
realizes that any true translation of bap-
tism into immersion would alienate all
that part of "Christendom" that has
used sprinkling or pouring and great
financial support would be lost as a re-
sult of such translation (Dahlstrom, 4).
The American Bible Society defends it-
self this way:
The insertion of a particular phrase or
word for "baptism" should not be a
means of stirring up religious contro-
versy or of proselyting. Men equally de-
vout and scholarly have been ranged on
the various sides of the baptism ques-
tion. . . . If both immersionists and non-
immersionists are represented among
the missionaries and the native constit-
uency, no translation should employ a
word which would rule out one or the
other of the interpretations as to the
mode of baptism (Eugene A. Nida,
BIBLE TRANSLATING, 22, 232).
In 1838 the Baptists, because the Ameri-
can Bible Society refused to use the word
"immersion," withdrew their financial
support, and asked Alexander Campbell
to help them with their own version.
Campbell did so, and the new version,
THE BIBLE UNION, was published.
However, Baptists did not like the phrase
"John the Immerser," and the version
never was popular.
In 1843 a public debate between Alex-
ander Campbell and N. L. Rice, a Pres-
byterian, with Henry Clay as moderator,
was held at Lexington, Kentucky. Rice
suffered as Campbell showed that all lexi-
cons and authorities define baptidzo as
"immerse," never "sprinkle."
However, Rice found what he thought
was an exception. He pointed out that all
known Greek manuscripts have bapto,
"dip," in Revelation 19:13, but that three
authorities (the Syriac of the 2nd century,
Origen of the 3rd, and Jerome of the 4th)
had translated bapto in Revelation 19:13
with hraino, "sprinkle."
12
However, Campbell pressed Rice to
prove that those authorities had bapto in
their Greek manuscript of Revelation
19:13. The learned Campbell knew that no
authority had ever translated bapto as
hraino, and so he speculated that in this
particular instance that those three au-
thorities had hraino in their Greek texts
of Revelation 19:13, and then accurately
used it for their translations.
But Rice pressed his point,
Unless we can believe that they [the
three authorities] were ignorant of the
meaning of the word bapto, we are
obliged to believe that in their day it was
used in the sense of sprinkling.
But Campbell, having unswerving con-
fidence in his years of research that bap-
tidzo and bapto never mean "sprinkling,
replied that Mr. Rice
assumed that those authorities had bapto
in their text [of Revelation 19:13]. It is
suspicious that those translators, only
once, and that in reference to the same
verse, out of 120 occurrences, translate
bapto by "sprinkle"; and that through
1800 years a hundred versions never so
translate bapto. In addition, the Old
Testament allusion (Is. 63:3) calls for
hraino to be the original. Therefore,
there is almost a moral certainty that
there was a different reading.
Rice replied that Campbell would
change the word of God to sustain his
position. But Campbell, having to specu-
late in 1843, in 1844 found himself vindi-
cated. In the St. Catherine Convent at the
foot of Mt. Sinai, Friedrich Tischendorf
found the Aleph Greek manuscript of the
4th century, a manuscript that has hraino
in Revelation 19:13. Campbell's scholarly
surmisal was correct. As a result of
Tischendorf's discovery, the RV of 1881
removed "dipped" from Revelation 19:13
and inserted "sprinkled." Then in 1901
the ASV did the same thing. But the KJV,
NAS, NIV, NKJ, and the NRS are lagging
behind, still using "dipped."
 All the above discussion on the "how"
of baptism was focused on sprinkling,
pouring, and immersion. But when one
realizes that baptism is only an immer-
sion, he studies in vain to find any "how"
or mode or method or manner to im-
merse. A candidate for baptism, standing
in a river, asked N. B. Hardeman, "Why
don't I just squat?" Hardeman, whose
mode always was to lean the person back-
ward, answered, "No, no!", and pro-
ceeded to lean him backward. Hardeman
later told a class of preacher boys, "I was
wrong. The Bible specifies no mode of
baptism." Even pouring as baptism is ac-
ceptable if enough pouring is done to im-
merse a person. Holy Spirit baptism was
poured on the apostles, immersing and
filling them (Acts 1:5; 2:4, 17).
"Christian baptistries in the cata-
combs are dated from the first to
the fourth centuries."
I was one of the preacher boys, and
later I found that I needed Hardeman's
lesson. In a creek out from Martinsburg,
West Virginia, in knee-deep water, I was
13
preparing to baptize a convert from the
Church of the Brethren (Mennonites).
After I said the ceremony, she got down
on her knees. My usual mode of leaning
the person backward would not only have
been difficult but possibly injurious. In
the only baptisms she had ever seen the
candidates got on their knees and were
pushed forward face downward until
completely under the water (she had
experienced trine immersion by a
Mennonite preacher). So I immediately
changed my mode of baptizing, leaning
her forward and down.
Let no one ever say, "we baptize by
immersion." That is a compromising
statement. It is an admission that there
are other ways than immersion to bap-
tize. By way of illustration, one does not
say, "I masticate by chewing," for mas-
tication is chewing.
CONCLUSION: We are not to lie in
Jesus' tomb, but unless we have been
buried in water in the likeness of Jesus'
tomb, we have not been baptized (Rom.
6:4-5).
Hugo McCord (Th.D.) is retired professor
of Bible and biblical languages at Oklahoma
Christian University. He may be reached at 12715
S.E. Main, Portland, Oregon 97233.
 Baptism and Conversion
Jim Laws
Perhaps there is
no more contro-
versial subject in-
volved in New Testa-
ment C h r i s t i a n i t y
than the subject of
baptism. Widely dif-
fering i n t e r p r e t a -
tions of the act of
baptism exist among
religious people. There are different views
as to the nature of baptism, who should
be baptized, as well as the appropriate
method by which baptism should be ad-
ministered. Some view baptism as a
means of receiving the forgiveness of sin,
others consider it a sign and seal of the
covenant rather than a means by which
salvation is brought about. Still others
consider it a symbolic act emphasizing
that baptism does not cause an inward
change or alter a person's relationship to
God. Baptism, they say, is a token, or an
outward indication of the inner change
which has already occurred in the be-
liever's life.1
Such is sufficient to demonstrate that
the subject of baptism is a controversial
one, having various schools of thought
and interpretation. It will be the purpose
of this article to look at the relationship
baptism sustains to conversion. The book
of Acts, in particular, will be the source
material for this investigation (though it
certainly will not be limited to Acts). As
always, one basic presupposition to any
research of this nature is that the Bible is
the inspired word of God and that what-
14
ever the Bible says about a given matter is
always right. This means that whatever
conclusion is warranted from the scrip-
tures is necessarily the right one and is
the one God would have all men to es-
pouse (I Thess. 5:21). That means that the
theological positions developed by men
cannot be the final court of appeal in de-
ciding what is right. The Bible is that final
court of appeal. Its truths are knowable
(Jn. 8:32; II Tim. 3:13-17), and only when
one is submissive to them can he be
pleasing in the sight of God (Matt. 7:21;
Jn. 12:48).
It is important to understand that the
Bible refers to conversion or being con-
verted many times. The original term
often translated converted is epistrepho.
This is a Greek term which carries with it
the idea of turning away from something
and turning to something else.2 For in-
stance, Paul says that the Thessalonian
Christians had "turned to God from idols
to serve the living and true God" (I Thess.
1:9). Peter told his listeners, "Repent
ye therefore and be converted, that your
sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). The
ASV retains more of the original meaning
of the aorist imperative (epistrepsate) by
translating the term "turn again." It is
clear that repentance, a word which con-
veys the idea of changing one's mental
outlook and one's life, as well as being
converted, is essential in having one's
sins blotted out or forgiven. The word
therefore means "to turn again." Men
must repent and turn to God. If a man
turns his life over to God and changes
his way of life, His sins are "blotted out"
(exaliphthenai)3, that is, erased, wiped out
or forgiven. Various passages from the
New Testament bear out this deduction,
that being, if one is to stand in a pleasing
relationship with God, he must be con-
verted, that is, turn away from sin and
turn to God and his word (Acts 28:27; Jas.
5:19-20; Matt. 13:15; Mk. 4:12; Lk. 22:32).
Central to this article is the relationship
that baptism sustains to this conversion
process. Upon examination one finds that
the Bible is filled with examples of indi-
viduals who were converted. What part
did baptism have to play in this turning
away from sin and turning to God?
Pentecost: Acts 2:14-47
An example of conversion may be seen
in the significant events of the first Pen-
tecost following the resurrection of Jesus
Christ (Acts 2:14-47). The day of the feast
had come, and the disciples were to-
gether observing the Lord's instructions
to tarry in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:49). What the
Apostles experienced with the tongues as
of fire and the sound of a rushing mighty
wind is not like anything experienced
today (Acts 2:1-4). This strange occur-
rence brought confusion and bewilder-
ment that no doubt amazed the onlookers
and brought a charge that the apostles
were drunk (v. 13). Peter answered that
the charge was not so and in addition to
that preached the Christian message of
the risen Lord who now reigns as King of
his kingdom, the church (Acts 2:33).
Peter said the crowd stood condemned
as an unbelieving and lawless people hav-
ing crucified the son of God. They stood'
condemned in God's sight. Peter's ser-
mon hit home. They wanted forgiveness,
and they were told that such was possible
through Jesus Christ. Peter's inspired ser-
mon had done its job as some three thou-
sand souls turned from sin and turned to
Christ (conversion—Acts 2:41). The first
converts experienced a new relationship
15
with their Master by means of acknowl-
edging faith in him, repenting, and be-
ing baptized, which brought about the
forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Wrong-
doing had taken place (sin) and remission
(aphesin—to release or pardon)4 was ob-
tainable by repenting and being baptized
(v. 38).
Therefore, by repenting and being bap-
tized, the wrong was cancelled or par-
doned for the wrongdoer. The sin is
forgiven from the sinner. It is obvious
that the matter of their salvation (conver-
sion) was in the mind of Peter (v. 21). To
be converted, that is, to turn from sin and
wrongdoing and to turn to God through
Christ, meant that they had to repent and
be baptized (v. 41). J. W. McGarvey points
out, "This is the first time, under the
reign of Jesus Christ, that this most
important of all questions was ever pro-
pounded; and the first time, of course,
that it was ever answered. Whatever may
have been the true answer under any pre-
vious dispensation, or any previous day
in the world's history, the answer given
by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in
which the reign of Christ on earth began,
is the true and infallible answer for all the
subjects of his authority in all subsequent
time."5 Baptism, therefore, played an in-
dispensable role in the lives of the first
converts to Christ and, as McGarvey
points out, for all the future would-be
converts as well. Baptism on the day of
Pentecost played an integral and essential
part in the conversion process.
Samaria: Acts 8:5-13
With the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7),
local persecution of Christians intensified,
causing Christians to leave Jerusalem to
preach elsewhere (Acts 8:4). With this
scattering, Christianity was presented to
the surrounding area. One of the seven
who was originally chosen to serve tables
(Acts 6:2)—a man named Philip—went
to Samaria to preach the gospel. This is a
significant event in Acts as the Samari-
tans, a people who observed the law of
Moses and practiced the rite of circum-
cision, were despised and hated by the
Jews in Judea (Jn. 4:9). Pious Jews consid-
ered Samaritans no better than the most
degenerate of the heathen. When Philip
went to Samaria, he came "preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12).
Upon hearing the message of the gos-
pel, the text says that "they were baptized
both men and women." The record says
that Simon believed and was baptized as
well. The importance of this is seen in
that the Gospel was going into the world
beyond Jerusalem and the converting
message was the same as it was in Jerusa-
lem for the Jews. Even though Luke gives
us just a general statement regarding the
message of Philip, simply saying that he
preached the kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus, yet he is more specific in
the results that were obtained by the mes-
sage, namely, that the Samaritans be-
lieved and were baptized, including Si-
mon (Acts 8:12-13). This is significant
because once again the biblical text is
teaching of sinners turning from sin and
turning to God, and baptism is men-
tioned as a specific part of that conversion
process. Why mention the fact that the
Samaritans were baptized, including Si-
mon, if it were not for the essential part
baptism sustains to conversion?
The Ethiopian: Acts 8:35-39
The way this man was converted should
be of interest to us all. God was interested
in his conversion (Acts 8:26), and he set in
motion the way whereby the Ethiopian
would be instructed in the way of the
Lord. An angel appeared to Philip, not
the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-27), to send him
to the man to be converted. This was the
only part the angel played in the conver-
sion of the Ethiopian; in fact it was not
even necessary for the Ethiopian to know
of the angel's visit to Philip. The Spirit
16
came to Philip, not the Ethiopian, in-
structing Philip to "go near and join thy-
self to this chariot" (v. 29).
The text is clear that this was done
to get Philip and the eunuch together.
The Spirit influenced the eunuch only
through the words of Philip. In preaching
to the eunuch "Jesus," Philip must have
discussed the essential place that baptism
has in the salvation or conversion pro-
cess; otherwise, the eunuch, who was an
honest and sincere student (v. 34), would
not have known to ask about his being
baptized (v. 36). How did he know any-
thing about being baptized? There can be
only one answer to this; in preaching
Jesus, Philip taught him Jesus' commands
in regard to baptism. It was Jesus who
said, "He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth
shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16). Once
again, we see the essential part baptism
has in being converted to Christ.
Saul: Acts 9:17-18
Luke teaches of the hatred which Saul
had for "the way" (a phrase which was
applied to Christianity—Acts 22:4) as
both men and women felt his fury (Acts
9:2). Yet his life was forever changed
when he became obedient to the voice
of the Lord. Through the course of this
Damascus road experience, Saul asked
the all-important question, "Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 22:10).
The Lord's answer was to "go into
Damascus and it shall be told thee what
thou must do" (Acts 22:10). Why did not
Jesus tell him immediately? Because the
work of proclaiming the gospel had been
given to the ambassadors of the Lord
(II Cor. 5:18-20).
Ananias, a disciple of the Lord would
answer Saul's question (vs. 17, 18). Saul
was told to "arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name
of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Saul's sins were
not forgiven when he saw the bright
light, nor when he learned that Jesus was
speaking to him out on the Damascus
road, nor during his time of fasting and
praying, but rather when he was obedient
to the instruction of Ananias regarding
what he "must do." When Ananias told
him to "arise, and be baptized, and wash
away" his sins, he at once did so and was
comforted. Baptism is a washing (Tit. 3:5;
Heb. 10:22). God forgives the sins of those
who in faith repent and are baptized. Paul
had to receive the same instruction and
had to do the same things which the Jews
did on Pentecost, along with the Sa-
maritans who listened to the preaching of
Philip, as well as the Ethiopian nobleman
of Acts 8. Therefore, baptism was an es-
sential part in the conversion of Saul to
Christ.
"Paul had to receive the same in-
struction and had to do the same
things which the Jews did on Pen-
tecost, along with the Samaritans
who listened to the preaching of
Philip, as well as the Ethiopian no-
bleman of Acts 8."
Cornelius: Acts 10:34-38
A study of the conversion of Cornelius
will reveal that baptism plays an essential
role in the conversion process. In a most
powerful way Peter learned that God is
no respecter of persons and that, since
all men have sinned, then all men need
the gospel. This, among other reasons, is
why the case of Cornelius and the con-
version of his household are so impor-
tant. However, when one compares the
conversion of Cornelius with the other
cases mentioned already, one finds that
they are remarkably similar. Peter preached
to the Gentiles just what he had preached
to the Jews on Pentecost—that Jesus had
risen from the dead; that he was made
17
Lord and Christ; that the miracles of Jesus
prove that indeed he is the Son of God;
that the Gentiles must do what was re-
quired of the Jews, that being to believe
in Jesus as the Christ, to repent (Acts
11:18), and to be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ (Acts 10:48). Once again,
baptism played an essential role in salva-
tion.
Lydia: Acts 16:14-15
Lydia was from Thyatira, a town in the
province of Lydia. Perhaps Lydia got her
name from this province. Purple was
highly prized by the Romans and was
worn by the wealthy (Lk. 16:19). It was a
costly dye and an important industry of
Thyatira. It is interesting to note that as
Lydia was in Philippi, she still found time
to worship God even though she was
traveling away from home. The scripture
says that the Lord opened her heart
through the teaching of Paul. Paul ob-
viously had taught her the gospel, and in
so doing, error and misconceptions about
truth were removed. There is certainly
nothing mysterious about this. Paul was
sent to instruct her just as Ananias had
been sent to Paul, Peter to Cornelius, and
Philip to the Ethiopian. When the verse
teaches that "she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul," it
simply means she accepted and obeyed
the things that Paul taught her. She was
obedient to the gospel, part of which was
being baptized (v. 15). For the record to
say that she was baptized shows that this
was one of the "things" spoken by Paul.
When Philip preached to the Samaritans
and the Ethiopian, they were baptized;
and, so in this case, teaching us of the
essential role baptism has in the conver-
sion of sinners to Christ.
The Jailer: Acts 16:19-34
After the conversion of Lydia and her
household, Paul cast a demon, or "spirit
of divination," out of a maid, which led to
his and Silas' imprisonment. The demon's
cry was accurate regarding Paul and Silas:
"These men are the servants of the most
High God, which shew unto us the way
of salvation" (Acts 16:17). The way of sal-
vation was proclaimed, and this is the
very way in which it is learned. Paul and
Silas were ultimately beaten and cast into
prison. God heard the prayers uttered
and the hymns sung by Paul and Silas
that night as the foundations of the
prison were shaken with an earthquake
(v. 26) at the same time God opened all
the doors and loosed everyone's bands.
As the jailer was ready to commit sui-
cide rather than be executed for the es-
cape of his prisoners, Paul "cried with a
loud voice, saying, do thyself no harm;
for we are all here" (v. 28). The cry of Paul
not only saved the jailer's physical life
but, as time would later show, his spir-
itual one as well. The jailer was concerned
with the salvation of his soul as he was
aware of the fact that his prisoners were
still secure. No doubt having heard of the
preaching of Paul and Silas and the work
of Paul in casting out the demon from the
slave girl, the jailer brought Paul and Silas
out from the inner prison and asked,
"Sirs what must I do to be saved?" (v. 30).
"The pattern for salvation and
conversion was the same in each
instance relative to the matter of
baptism, that being that baptism
was required of each individual
who would move spiritually from
an unsaved state to a saved one."
Paul's answer was, "Believe on the Lord
Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and
thy house" (v. 31). Paul began with the
matter of faith because that was where
18
the jailer needed to begin; up to this point
he was an unbeliever. He needed to un-
derstand the necessity of faith (Heb. 11:6).
Faith is indeed the first great condition of
salvation. It is an obedient faith that leads
one to obey the gospel (Jas. 2:20-26).
Those who would conclude from this that
salvation is through faith alone, fail to
consider the thrust of the phrase "the
word of the Lord" in the next verse
(v. 32). The blessing of salvation was
being offered to the jailer and his house-
hold in the same way that it was offered
to all other converts of which we have
record in the book of Acts.
"The word of the Lord" (v. 32) em-
braces the gospel of Christ—its facts,
commands, promises, and hope. As did
Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and
Philip when he preached Christ to the
Samaritans and the eunuch (Acts 8:5, 12,
35-39), Paul and Silas must have told the
jailer and his household who Jesus was,
that they were sinners in need of a savior,
how Jesus the Christ was the only one who
could meet that need by his shed blood,
and that they must repent and be bap-
tized in his name for the remission of
sins. The general phrase "the word of the
Lord" must have included such, based on
what the jailer did. They would never
have been baptized if "the word of the
Lord" had never embraced such. They
knew nothing of baptism or the gospel of
Christ before this, and they had only
learned such from Paul. The jailer had
come to believe in Jesus. He washed the
stripes of Paul and Silas, which is evi-
dence of repentance and an effort to undo
some of the wrong that had been done to
these preachers of righteousness, and he
was baptized "immediately" (v. 33). Now,
the treatment of Paul and Silas was much
different from what it was the night be-
fore. The jailer brought them into his
house, and he set food before them
(v. 34). His heart was filled with joy as he
"rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house" (v. 34).
 Conclusion
From the brief discussion of the conver-
sions that have been studied from the
book of Acts, one conclusion that must be
drawn is that baptism plays an essential
role in the conversion process. In each of
the instances studied, one finds that one
must be baptized in order to be pleasing
to God, to be pleasing to Christ, and to
obey the Word of God. The pattern for
salvation and conversion was the same in
each instance relative to the matter of
baptism, that being that baptism was
required of each individual who would
move spiritually from an unsaved state to
a saved one. Since it is the case that con-
version is the turning away from sin and
Satan and a turning to a life of righteous-
The One Baptism
David Pharr
here is one
body . . . one
Spirit . . . one hope
. . . one Lord . . . one
faith . . . one baptism
. . . one God . . ."
(Eph. 4:4-6).
In a moving ap-
peal for Christians to
endeavor "to keep
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace," Paul cites seven things which are
common to the faith of all true Christians.
In citing these things his purpose is to
show that since God's people share these
things in common they ought, therefore,
to be united to all things and not be
"carried about by every wind of doctrine"
(Eph. 4:14).
It is important to observe that the apos-
tle does not name these things as the only
19
ness, then it is also the case that baptism
is an essential part of that process and
that without it no genuine conversion to
Christ can take place (Mk. 16:15-16).
ENDNOTES
1 The reader is referred to the New Bible
Dictionary, ed. by J. D. Douglas, Tyndale
House Publications, Inc., Wheaton, 111., 1982,
pp. 121-124, for a general discussion about bap-
tism.
2 A Creek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1957, 1974, p. 301.
3 Arndt and Gingrich, p. 272.
4 Arndt and Gingrich, p. 124.
5 A Commentary on Acts of Apostles, J. W.
McGarvey, Gospel Advocate Co., Nashville,
Tenn., 1978, p. 39.
essential elements of brotherhood, as some
aver, thus allowing for doctrinal "unity
in diversity." Instead, they are named as
a reason why unity is expected in regard
to all matters. Nor does he write with the
objective of bringing the original New
Testament readers to the acceptance of
these seven fundamental things. Paul le-
gitimately assumes that they should not
question that there is one body, one Spirit,
etc. Each item named was understood to
be an essential part of every Christian's
faith and experience.
Today, however, because of the doc-
trines and traditions of men, there is much
confusion regarding each of the "one"
items named. Perhaps none has been
more misunderstood than the clear, defi-
nite and absolute declaration that there is
"one baptism."
The key to understanding the nature of
this "one baptism" is found in the pur-
pose of the text itself. The apostle's argu-
ment for unity was based on the fact that,
along with the six other items named,
there was a baptism which was the univer-
sal experience of every member of the New
Testament church. Any baptism which had
not been experienced by every Christian
could not be this one baptism. Otherwise
his argument for unity would lose its
force. He could hardly have argued for
their being united because of having all
experienced the same baptism if some
of them had not experienced it. As the
Ephesians would read the epistle, there-
fore, they would immediately recognize
that there was indeed one baptism which
was common to them all. Thus it is a
simple matter for us to discover the nature
of this baptism by distinguishing between
those baptisms in the Bible which per-
tained to only certain persons, or which
were appointed only for a limited time, or
which were figurative uses of the term,
and that baptism appointed for all be-
lievers throughout the Christian dispen-
sation.
Baptism of John
In preparing the way for the ministry of
Jesus, John the Baptist baptized with "the
baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins" (Mk. 1:4). This was preached
to the Jewish people, not to the whole
world.
The ministry and baptism of John,
however, was intended to be of limited
duration because of its limited purpose—
to prepare the way for Christ (Jn. 3:26-30).
This fact is illustrated in the case of cer-
tain ones Paul found at Ephesus. This was
several years after John's baptism had
been replaced by baptism in the name of
Christ. These had been baptized "unto
John's baptism." After being taught by
Paul they were then "baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:1-5). John's
baptism is not the one baptism of Ephe-
20
sians 4:5 because the text was written long
after the purpose of John's ministry had
been completed.
Great Commission Baptism
Unlike the baptism of John, the bap-
tism of the Great Commission has a uni-
versal application. It is intended for every
person who will accept the gospel until
the end of the world. It would be, there-
fore, the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5,
the only baptism all Christians have in
common.
"Any baptism which had not been
experienced by every Christian
could not be this one baptism.
Otherwise his argument for unity
would lose its force."
Mark's record of the Commission shows
that the gospel and the baptism con-
nected with it is for "all the w,orld" and
"every creature" (Mk. 16:15-16). This bap-
tism is named as a requisite for salvation
and would be therefore the one baptism
experienced by every saved person.
Matthew confirms the point saying:
"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). The point to be understood
is that people among all nations would
become disciples as they are baptized.
This baptism would, therefore, be the
one baptism of every disciple. Further,
the authority of Christ which com-
manded this baptism would continue
with the apostles' teaching "even unto
the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20).
It should also be observed that this uni-
versal baptism was to be administered by
men, not directly by the Lord. Jesus told
men to baptize people of all nations. This
will be seen as especially significant as we
consider Holy Spirit baptism, which was
administered only by the Lord himself.
In Luke 24:47 Jesus said: "And that re-
pentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk. 24:47). Bap-
tism is not named in this passage, but it is
named in Acts 2:38, where in Jerusalem
(the right beginning place), and where in
obviously parallel wording, the gospel
command involved "repentance" and bap-
tism "in his name" for the "remission of
sins." The baptism first preached in Jeru-
salem, a baptism in the name of Christ for
the remission of sins, is the baptism to be
preached "among all nations."
In summary, since the one baptism of
Ephesians 4:5 is a baptism common to the
experience of all Christians, it must be the
baptism of the Great Commission. This
baptism is intended for every person who
will respond to the gospel until the end of
the world. It is a baptism administered by
men. It is to be administered in the name
of Christ. Connected with faith and re-
pentance it precedes salvation, being for
the remission of sins. When we can find
in the Bible the baptism that fits all these
criteria, we will know it is the one bap-
tism. Any baptism that does not include
all of these features is not the one bap-
tism.
Water Baptism
A simple review of several passages
will make it plain that the "one baptism"
that fits the above named criteria is water
baptism.
In Acts 2:38 baptism is commanded in
Christ's name for the remission of sins.
This was at the beginning in Jerusalem
and was preached to a Jewish audience.
In Acts 10:47-48 the same baptism is com-
manded for Gentiles (people of other na-
tions). "Can any man forbid water, that
these should not be baptized. . . . And
he commanded them to be baptized in
the name of the Lord." The baptism com-
21
manded in the name of Christ in both
passages is the same baptism, a baptism
for all nations (Jew and Gentile), and
water is clearly named as the element.
Acts 8 tells of Philip's preaching in Sa-
maria and of men and women being bap-
tized. Then Peter and John came to
Samaria to impart to them the Spirit by
the laying on of their (the apostles')
hands. What is especially significant is
the careful distinction the text makes be-
tween their having been baptized in the
name of Jesus and their later receiving the
Holy Spirit. "For as yet he [Holy Spirit]
was fallen upon none of them; only they
were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus" (Acts 8:16). Their baptism was not
Spirit baptism because the text clearly
says they had not received the Spirit. It
was in the name of Christ, and we have
already seen that baptism in the name of
Christ is water baptism (Acts 10:47-48).
The same point is clear in the case of the
Ephesians in Acts 19:5-6. It was after
"they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus" that the apostle laid his
hands on them and they received the
Holy Ghost. Their baptism in the name of
Christ was the same as for all others bap-
tized in the name of Christ; it was water
baptism.
Another of the criteria by which we can
determine the one baptism, the universal
baptism of the Great Commission, is in
the fact that it is administered by men.
The case of the Ethiopian eunuch being
baptized by Philip is a clear example (Acts
8:36-39). They "went down both into the
water . . . and he baptized him."
We also remember that the one baptism
precedes salvation (Mk. 16:16), that it is
for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I Pe-
ter 3:20-21 identifies the baptism that
saves us as water baptism.
Thus the "one baptism" which was the
common experience of the Jews on Pen-
tecost, the Samaritans, the eunuch, the
Gentiles, the Ephesians, and all persons
brought to Christ under Great Commis-
sion is water baptism, administered by
men, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins.
Holy Spirit Baptism
John and Jesus both foretold the bap-
tism of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 3:11; Acts
1:4-5). This is appropriate terminology be-
cause the miraculous coming of the Spirit
would be overwhelming. Just as baptism
in water involves a complete submersion,
so those to whom the Spirit was promised
would be submerged in his power. Jesus
also described this as being "endued with
power from on high" (Lk. 24:47). But while
the baptism of the Spirit had a vital part in
the beginning of the gospel age, it is evi-
dent that Holy Spirit baptism was not the
one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. Consider
the following obvious points of difference.
The one baptism is administered by
men; the baptism of the Holy Spirit was
administered by the Lord from heaven
(Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:1-4, 16-18, 33).
"Thus the 'one baptism' which was
the common experience of the Jews
on Pentecost, the Samaritans, the
eunuch, the Gentiles, the Ephe-
sians, and all persons brought to
Christ under Great Commission is
water baptism, administered by
men, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins."
The one baptism is a command to be
obeyed (Acts 2:38; 10:48); Holy Spirit bap-
tism was a promise to be received by those
for whom it was intended (Lk. 24:49; Acts
1:4-5).
The one baptism is for the purpose of
remission of sins, in order to be saved
(Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16, et al.); Spirit bap-
22
tism was for the purpose of providing
miraculous power to be used in the con-
firmation of the gospel (Lk. 24:49; Acts
1:8; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:3-4).
The one baptism is intended for all
believers and has been obeyed by every
person who is in Christ (Gal. 3:27); the
baptism of the Spirit was promised only
to certain ones at the beginning of the
gospel age. John had said that Jesus
would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Jesus
reiterated this in Acts 1:5; but it should be
carefully observed that Jesus was speak-
ing only to the apostles. A simple tracing
of the pronouns in Acts 1:2-8 back to their
antecedent in verse 2 will make this plain.
Further, the fulfillment of the promise in
Acts 2 is restricted to the apostles because
the pronouns "they all," "them," and
"they" in Acts 2:1-4 have their antecedent
in the noun "apostles" in Acts 1:26. (Cf.
Acts 2:14f.)
A case by implication might be made
for the apostle Paul having received the
baptism of the Spirit; but this is irrelevant
for this study. The point being made is
that Spirit baptism was never intended
except for certain persons. In contrast,
the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is a bap-
tism which has been experienced by
every Christian. If Spirit baptism had
been in view when Paul wrote this great
unity admonition, it would have been a
meaningless point because only a few
persons ever received Spirit baptism. The
point that begged for unity was that
everyone in the church had been bap-
tized according to the Great Commission,
baptized in water in the name of Jesus
Christ.
Fire and Suffering
John had also foretold that Christ
would baptize some with fire (Matt. 3:11).
He spoke to a mixed multitude and some
present were subject to "the wrath to
come" (Matt. 3:7). The baptism of fire is
explained in Matthew 3:12. It is the
punishment of the wicked. Jesus used
the term "baptism" in another figura-
tive sense as He spoke of His suffering
(Lk. 12:50; cf. Mk. 38f).
Other Passages
The same points that are made regard-
ing Ephesians 4:5 also apply to other pas-
sages which connect baptism with the
subject of unity. Two such texts are Gala-
Is Baptism Essential to Salvation?
Roy H. Lanier, Jr.
aptism! What is
more controver-
sial in the religious
world than baptism?
Since the early
centuries baptism
has been studied,
discussed, argued
about, and fought
over in divisions.
Every religious group, at least those who
try to follow Jesus Christ, teaches and
practices something they call baptism.
The purpose of such baptism is contro-
verted. Some claim the only baptism one
needs of that of the Holy Spirit, thus
negating any physical act involving water.
Others use water in various actions but
differ on the purpose. Some say it is a
time of dedication of infants, some say it
is a rite of consecration, some say it is the
entrance into their denominational fel-
lowship, some say it is an expression of
faith, some say it is a sign or seal of salva-
tion, and some say it is essential to salva-
tion. Who is correct?
23
tians 3:27 and I Corinthians 12:13. These
texts would lose their significance if they
referred to any baptism that is not the
common experience of every Christian.
They must also refer to the baptism of the
Great Commission.
David Pharr is director of the East Tennessee
School of Preaching and Missions in Knoxville,
Tennessee, and a frequent contributor to THE
SPIRITUAL SWORD.
What the Scholars Say
Baptism in either noun or verb form
occurs 98 times in the English Bible (King
James Version) but 127 times in the origi-
nal Greek language. The difference is due
to the fact the Greek word is often trans-
lated "wash" or "washing." Then there
are fifteen more renderings in the Gos-
pels that refer to John, the forerunner of
the Lord, who was called "the Baptist."
One scholar tells us baptism is "to con-
secrate (by pouring out on, or putting
into). . . ."1 Another suggests ". . . thus
witnessing to their identification with
Him in death, burial and resurrection,
e.g., Acts 19:5; Rom. 6:3, 4; I Cor. 1:13-17;
12:13; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12 . . . would indi-
cate that the baptized person was closely
bound to, or became the property of, the
one into whose Name he was baptized."2
Another man gives conflicting testi-
mony about the purpose of baptism but
he does include that when the verb BAP-
TIZO is used with the preposition EIS it
means to " . . . obtain the forgiveness of
sin, Acts ii.38; . . . to bring by baptism
into fellowship with Christ, into fel-
lowship in his death, by which fellow-
ship we have died to sin, Gal. iii.27; Rom.
vi.3. . . ."3 He adds concerning the noun
form BAPTISM A ". . . are born again by
the Holy Spirit unto a new life, come
into the fellowship of Christ and the
church (I Cor. xii.13), and are made par-
takers of eternal salvation; . . . Eph. iv.5;
Col. 2:12 . . . , I Pet. iii.21; . . . Rom.
vi.4. . . ."4
Other interesting comments say bap-
tism is "an expression of repentance and
faith," "decisive step of commitment,"
"rite of entry," "handed himself over to
be the property or disciple of the one
named," and "as a means or instrument
of being buried with Christ."5
What the New Testament Declares
1. Baptism is a condition of salvation.
a. Jesus said "He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that
disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mk.
16:16, ASV). There are two clauses in this
sentence. The independent clause tells us
someone shall be saved: the believer who
has been baptized. The dependent clause
tells us someone will be condemned: the
disbeliever. Consider a parallel: "He who
sows and reaps shall have bread, but he
who does not sow shall hunger."
Unfortunately some denominations
wish to twist and wrest this scripture to
their misfortune and destruction. They
say, "He that believeth shall be saved and
can be baptized if he wishes." Jesus, how-
ever, placed both belief and baptism prior
to salvation. Just as both sowing and reap-
ing are prior to eating bread, so both be-
lief and baptism are prior to, essential to,
salvation.
b. The apostles preached, "Repent
ye, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ unto the remis-
sion of your sins; . . ." (Acts 2:38). The
people asked a question and Peter replies
24
with two conditions: repentance and bap-
tism. Both conditions precede remission
of sins. If repentance precedes remission
of sins, so does baptism. Peter did not say
"repent for the remission of sins and be
baptized after sins are remitted." That
may make good denominational doc-
trine, but it is not biblical or correct.
"Just as both sowing and reaping
are prior to eating bread, so both
belief and baptism are prior to, es-
sential to, salvation."
c. Peter wrote, "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,) . . ." (I Pet.
3:21). Peter used Noah as an illustration of
salvation. Water lifted Noah out of a sin-
ful world, thus baptism lifts a penitent
believer out of a sinful world into the
kingdom of God.
2. Baptism is a change of relationship.
Jesus said the birth of the water and Spirit
puts one into the Kingdom of God (Jn.
3:3-5). Paul writes that baptism puts one
into the "one body" (I Cor. 12:13). He said
the church was this body (vs. 27-28). Bap-
tism then, puts one into the Lord's church,
or the kingdom reign of God.
Paul further teaches that baptism puts
one "into Christ" and that is also when
one "puts on Christ" (Rom. 6:3; Gal.
3:27). Prior to baptism one is not "in
Christ." Yet, it is "in Christ" that one
finds salvation (II Tim. 2:10), redemption
from sins (Eph. 1:7), forgiveness of sins
(Col. 1:14), and new creaturehood (II Cor.
5:17). Thus, baptism separates those who
are "in Christ" or "out of Christ," i.e., out
of fellowship with Christ.
Next, Paul teaches baptism is "into his
death" (Rom. 6:3), i.e., the benefits of
the death of Christ. Jesus shed his blood
in his death for our redemption (1 Pet.
1:18-19), thus when one enters into com-
munion and fellowship with the death of
Jesus, one contacts the precious blood by
which sins are washed away. This is God's
grace received in obedience.
3. Baptism is the time of purification. Saul
was told to "wash away his sins" in bap-
tism (Acts 22:16). This is consistent with
Paul's reminder to the brethren in Corinth
that they had been washed from previous
sins (I Cor. 6:11). This washing occurred
when they were sanctified and justified
and one needs to remember baptism had
been an important teaching by Paul in
their conversion (Acts 18:8; I Cor. 1:12-17).
Jesus has cleansed the church, his bride,
with the "washing of water with the
word," (Eph. 5:26), and the only water
the members of the church have used is
the water of baptism. Paul speaks further
of the "washing of regeneration and re-
newing of the Holy Spirit," (Tit. 3:5),
clearly similar to Jesus' statement of being
born again of water and Spirit (Jn. 3:5).
Christians can have boldness to enter
into the presence of God in prayer be-
cause they have had their "hearts sprin-
kled from an evil conscience: and our
body washed with pure water" (Heb.
10:22). Here the writer uses the analogy of
purification in reference to water, the
water of baptism. The sprinkling ob-
viously refers to the type and antitype of
the blood of the lamb offered under
Moses' Law, along with the blood of
God's Lamb, Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:29). Jesus'
blood, sprinkled on our hearts (figura-
tively) is the meritorious cause of purifica-
tion, and it takes place when our bodies
are washed in water.
Peter speaks of persons purifying them-
selves "in your obedience to the truth"
(I Pet. 1:22). He had previously said both
Jew and Gentile had their hearts purified
by faith (Acts 15:9). Yet, Peter had com-
manded the Jews to repent and be bap-
tized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts
25
2:38), and ten years later he commanded
the house of Cornelius to "be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48).
Peter's preaching of purification by faith,
then, included obedience that purifies in
submission to baptism.
If persons can go to heaven without
being saved from their sins, without
changing their relationship to God, and
without being purified in the blood of
Jesus, then one can say that baptism is
not essential to salvation! Otherwise,
baptism is necessary.
Where God Placed Water
In God's Book He has placed water be-
tween:
a communion or non-communion with
the name of Deity—Matt. 28:20;
the sinner and salvation—Mark 16:16;
the sinner and remission of sins—Acts
2:38;
being out of Christ or in Christ—Rom.
6:3-4; Gal. 3:27;
the sinner and reception of the benefits
of Jesus' death—Rom. 6:3;
the non-member and the member of
his body—I Cor. 12:13;
the sinner and putting on Christ—Gal.
3:27;
the sinner and being raised with
Christ—Rom. 6:4-5; Col. 2:12; 3:1;
the sinner and salvation—I Pet. 3:21;
receiving or not receiving the teaching
of Jesus—Acts 8:35-36.
Can honest searchers for salvation
deny sinners need all these things? God
placed baptism between the sinner and
all these blessings; still many persons
scoff at this. Baptism has become one of
the worst stumbling blocks to persons de-
pending upon their own selves and upon
the preaching of many denominations.
Also, how can one miss the clear pur-
pose of baptism? Whether it is stated as a
condition of salvation, change of rela-
tionship, or time of purification, it is
clearly where and when a momentous
change takes place in the life of a sinner.
Though baptism is no more important
than any other instruction of the Lord, it
is clearly a time when the most important
change in one's spiritual life occurs.
A sinner becomes a saint!
ENDNOTES
1 Robert Young, Analytical Commentary to
the Bible, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1969) p. 70.
2 W. E. Vines, An Expository Dictionary of
Does Grace Nullify1 Baptism for the
Remission of Sins?
William Woodson
T he answer to
the q u e s t i o n
above is NO. The
question (and the af-
firmative answer it is
supposed to entail)
has been presented,
in argument as well
as in query form, for
many years by de-
nominational spokesmen and, in more
recent years, it has been presented by
some within our own brotherhood. This
article, upholding in some detail the an-
swer given above, will consider two areas
of relevant Bible teaching concerning it.
Declarations of Relevant Verses
In considering a Bible theme, the sev-
eral passages which discuss it should be
studied carefully. The importance of
God's grace, along with the importance of
baptism for the remission of sins, is un-
26
New Testament Words, (Riverside Book and Bible
House, Iowa Falls, Iowa, 1952), p. 89.
3 Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament, (American Book
Company, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago,
1889), p. 94.
4 Ibid, p. 95.
5 J. D. G. Dunn, The Illustrated Bible Dictio-
nary, (Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Il-
linois, 1980), Part 1, pp. 172-175.
Roy H. Lanier, Jr. lives in Garland, Texas, and is
involved in preaching, writing, and teaching.
derscored by a brief study of several
verses.
Grace. There is joyful affirmation of
God's grace in our having the remission
of sins and in our growing and maturing
as the children of God. More than 100
times the Greek word charts is rendered
"grace" in the NT and some 20 more
times it is rendered benefit, favor, liber-
ality, etc. Grace is truly a vital theme of
scripture.
Grace and truth came by Christ (Jn.
1:17). Grace is known through the "word
of grace" (Acts 14:3; cf. 20:24; 20:32). Jews
and Gentiles, in like manner, are saved
"through the grace of God" (Acts 15:11).
Those in Ephesus who had believed
"through grace" were assisted by the
ministry of Apollos (Acts 18:27). Grace
and apostleship have been given of God
"for obedience to the faith" or "the obe-
dience that comes from faith" (Rom. 1:5,
KJV and NIV respectively). We are justi-
fied by grace (Rom. 3:24) and this cer-
tainly does not place God in our debt
(Rom. 4:4); indeed, justification is by faith
that it may be by grace (Rom. 4:16). We are
alerted to the fact that we are not to re-
ceive the grace of God in vain (I Cor. 6:1;
Heb. 12:15); we must not move from God's
grace to another gospel (Gal. 1:6); and we
must not fall from grace (Gal. 5:4). One
learns the word of the truth of the gospel,
is buried with Christ in baptism and is
risen with him through faith, and thereby
knows the grace of God in truth (Col. 1:5;
2:12; 1:6). God's purpose to save man by
grace is brought to light by the gospel (II
Tim. 1:9-11). As Christians we are to serve
as stewards of the manifold grace of God
(I Pet. 4:10). We deeply cherish the fulfill-
ment of hope by the grace of God at the
return of Christ (I Pet. 1:13).
Baptism. As one ponders the question
above, it is needful to consider it as re-
lated to NT verses stating the importance
of baptism for the remission of sins.
Thought about this relation is developed
through relevant questions concerning
the verses, grace, and baptism. Two
verses, from among many, are consid-
ered.
1. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).
Did Jesus not understand the truth con-
cerning the grace of God? Did he nullify
believing and being baptized to be saved
by what he knew about grace? Did he
nullify grace by his words about believing
and being baptized to be saved? When
these words about believing and being
baptized to be saved were recorded by
inspiration, did the grace of God suf-
fer nullification by their being written?
Could one by an appeal to what is termed
"grace" properly remove from this verse
the necessity of believing in Christ and
being baptized to be saved? Does anyone,
accordingly, have a right to remove bap-
tism as a condition of salvation by an
appeal to what is termed "grace"? To at-
tempt it is folly. The conclusion must be:
27
Believing and being baptized to be saved
(Mk. 16:16) do not nullify the grace of
God; grace does not nullify believing and
being baptized to be saved.
2. The Pentecostians who asked "What
shall we do" were told by Peter: "Repent,
and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Was not the
grace of God present in the miracle which
occurred, in Peter's preaching, in the
proof that Jesus is Lord and Christ, in
Peter's words concerning repentance and
baptism for the remission of sins, in the
reception of this truth by the three thou-
sand who were baptized? Was God's
grace, present throughout the entire ac-
count, nullified by the inspired uniting of
repentance and baptism for the remission
of sins? Did grace nullify the obedience of
the three thousand who repented and
were baptized for the remission of sins?
Conclusion: Acts 2:38 does not nullify the
grace of God; the grace of God does not
nullify repentance and baptism for the
remission of sins.
God's word makes it abundantly clear
that according to the gospel of Christ: (1)
baptism for the remission of sins does not
nullify the grace of God and (2) grace
does not nullify baptism for the remission
of sins.
Declarations of a Particular Verse
In addition to studying the verses
noted above, consideration in appropri-
ate depth is provided concerning a verse
which has long been misunderstood and
misused to claim the grace of God nul-
lifies baptism for the remission of sins.
The verse is: "For by grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8-10 KJV).
Need. The Ephesians had walked ac-
cording to Satan's course (2:2), had done
what the children of disobedience were
doing (2:2), had lived in the desires of the
flesh and mind (2:3), and accordingly
were dead in trespasses and sins (2:1).
Their need was apparent.
God's Action. God, rich in mercy and
love (2:4), had bestowed grace on the
Ephesians (2:5, 8). Indeed, he had made
them alive in Christ (2:5 ASV)2—a fact
which provides a vital insight into salva-
tion by grace as related to faith and bap-
tism.
Salvation of the Colossians and the
Ephesians. The Greek word translated
"made alive," sundzopoieo, occurs only in
Colossians 2:13 and Ephesians 2:5. The
importance of its limited occurrence is
most significant in the discussion of
grace, faith, baptism, and salvation. Each
occurrence of this word will be consid-
ered in order.
"Was God's grace, present through-
out the entire account, nullified by
the inspired uniting of repentance
and baptism for the remission of
sins?"
The context of "made alive" or
"quickened" in Colossians 2:133 is most
instructive. The Colossians were "com-
plete"4 in Christ (2:10), and God had for-
given5 all their trespasses (2:13). They re-
ceived forgiveness when they were bur-
ied with him in baptism and were raised
with Christ (2:12). Were the Colossians
forgiven by the grace of God? "Yes" is the
only answer possible. Indeed, they knew
the grace of God in truth (Col. 1:6). Did
grace, by which they were saved, nullify
their baptism? Did their baptism nullify
grace so that they were not saved? To ask
the questions is to answer them.
The Ephesians were also "quickened"
(KJV) or "made alive" (ASV). The Greek
text of Ephesians 2:5 has sundzopoieo—the
same as in Colossians 2:13. Also, God had
28
"raised up" the Ephesians (Eph. 2:6) just
as he had raised the Colossians (Col.
2:12)—the Greek text is sunegeiro (occur-
ring only in Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:12, 3:1).
Can there be any doubt that Ephesians
2:4-10 and Colossians 2:10-13 discuss the
same theme of salvation by the grace of
God? Can anyone deny that in being
saved by grace the Colossians were bur-
ied in baptism and then raised from the
dead in newness of life? Since the Ephe-
sians were also "raised up," as were the
Colossians, in being saved by the grace of
God (Eph. 2:6), how was it possible for
them to be "raised up" if they had not
been baptized, as were the Colossians?
The Colossians were "complete" in
Christ (Col. 2:12)—the translation of a
"perfect periphrastic" construction, the
meaning of which is that they had been
made complete and were continuing in
the resultant complete relation to God.
Accordingly, this construction alludes to
their then complete and continuing to be
complete relation to God consequent on
their being baptized and raised to new-
ness of life.
To the Ephesians Paul wrote "are ye
saved" (KJV) or "have ye been saved"
(ASV)—also the translation of a perfect
periphrastic construction, as noted be-
fore. As it does in Colossians 2:12, this
perfect periphrastic construction in Ephe-
sians 2:8 also means the Ephesians had
been saved and were continuing to be
saved.6 By use of dashes to indicate the
linking together of the words involved,
an expanded translation would be:
"You-have-been-and-are-being-saved."
How had it occurred that the Ephesians
had been saved and were being saved by
the grace of God? Paul indicated how this
occurred in stating they had "learned
Christ" when they "heard him" and were
"taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus"
(Eph. 4:20-21, KJV). A study of relevant
verses makes the plan of their salvation
very clear.
1. They had heard of Christ and had
been taught by him when they learned
the truth concerning him. How had this
learning of the truth occurred?
2. Paul said they had trusted in Christ
when they heard the word of the truth of
the gospel and believed in him (Eph.
1:12-13). But, was faith all that had been
present in their conversion? By no means.
"The plan of salvation in the gos-
pel includes the grace of God, the
preaching of the gospel, belief in
Christ as God's Son, repentance
from sins, and baptism for the re-
mission of sins in order to be raised
in newness of life."
3. Paul explained that he had preached
the gospel, "the word of his grace," at
Ephesus (Acts 20:24, 32). In so doing, he
had preached the necessity of repentance
as well as the necessity of faith (Acts
20:21). Would anyone deny the Ephesians
believed in Jesus and repented of their
sins? Were they saved by faith "alone"? If
so, why was it necessary for them to re-
pent? Were they saved without grace be-
cause they repented? Was their salvation
attained by only the conditions of faith
and repentance? Indeed not.
4. Paul instructed some believers at
Ephesus about baptism with the result
they were "baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). Could anyone
deny their salvation was by grace? Would
anyone affirm their being baptized in the
name of the Lord nullified the grace of
God? Would anyone affirm that the grace
of God nullified their need to be baptized
in the name of the Lord?
The truth is the Ephesians were taught
the gospel, they believed it, they re-
pented of their sins, and they were bap-
tized to be saved just as the Colossians
were. In so doing they were saved by the
29
grace of God; and by continuing to serve
God, as the Book of Ephesians instructed,
they would continue to be saved. In the
same way the Colossians, who by grace
had been made complete in Christ when
they were baptized and were raised in
newness of life, were to be submissive to
Christ as Paul instructed them to do.
Conclusion
This understanding of salvation by
grace received by the Ephesians and the
Colossians harmonizes perfectly with the
instruction of Jesus in Mark 16:16 and of
Peter in Acts 2:38. The plan of salvation in
the gospel includes the grace of God, the
preaching of the gospel, belief in Christ as
God's Son, repentance from sins, and
baptism for the remission of sins in order
to be raised in newness of life. God's
grace is exhibited in this gospel plan of
salvation. By this gospel plan of salvation
God's grace avails in our being saved, and
it continues to be present in the faithful
life of the servants of God.
ENDNOTES
1 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines nul-
lify: "to make or render of no value," and
states "one thing nullifies another that reduces
it to ineffectualness."
2 Also rendered "quickened" (KJV); "made
alive" (RSV, NIV); "brought to life" (NEB);
"brought to new life" (Bruce).
3 "Did make alive" (ASV); "made alive"
(RSV; NEB; NIV); "raised to new life" (Bruce).
4 The importance of this construction,
termed the perfect periphrastic in Greek, will
be noted in a later discussion. For the moment,
it is sufficient to note that in Eph. 2:8 the KJV
"are ye saved" and in Col. 2:10 the KJV "ye are
complete" both translate the same Greek per-
fect periphrastic construction which underlies
them.
5 This verb is charidzo; the cognate noun is
charts.
6 Though somewhat of a technical nature,
the importance of the perfect periphrastic con-
struction is relevant to the study being made
and needs to be emphasized. James Hope
Moulton, Grammar of the Greek New Testament—
Prolegomena, stated concerning the perfect pe-
riphrastic construction in Ephesians 2:5, 8 that
it tells "of a work which is finished on its
Author's side, but progressively realized by its
objects" (p. 127). God's "side" in saving the
Ephesians was finished; now they were pro-
gressively to realize and work out the nature
and significance of their salvation by their sub-
mission to God in the good works ordained.
C. D. F. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament
Greek, expressed the significance of the con-
False Concepts of Baptism
Wayne Jackson
S ome subjects in
the Bible are
more difficult to com-
prehend than others.
Even Peter declared
that Paul had written
upon themes that are
hard to understand
(II Pet. 3:16). It should
be obvious, however,
that matters pertaining to the plan of re-
demption will be the easiest of all subjects
to grasp. The topic of water baptism is
mentioned dozens of times in the New
Testament. It is intimately connected to
the divine scheme of salvation. Instruc-
tions regarding this sacred obligation are
very precise. It is thus truly amazing that
this topic has been so grossly misun-
derstood in a great variety of ways. In this
study, we will call attention to some of
the false ideas that have arisen regarding
baptism across the centuries.
No Baptism Today
Unbelievably, some allege that whereas
water baptism played a role in the divine
30
struction in these words: "You have been saved
[and therefore enjoy your present status] . . . "
(p. 19). Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Grammar of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Lit-
erature, stated concerning the same perfect
periphrastic construction in Eph. 4:14 and Col.
1:21 that its force is "obviously to express still
more forcibly the persistence of the new state
of things" (p. 179, paragraph 352).
William Woodson (Th.D.) teaches in the De-
partment of Bible at David Lipscomb University
in Nashville, Tennessee.
scheme of things during the first century,
it became obsolete, and so is not ap-
propriate today. An Anglican clergyman
named E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) origi-
nated a doctrine that has come to be
known as Ultra-Dispensationalism. Basically,
ultra-dispensationalism alleges that the
"water baptism" of the New Testament
was a Jewish ceremonial ritual which was
a part of the Mosaic economy. Further,
the contention is that the Mosaic system
was not abrogated until the end of the
book of Acts. Accordingly, when the law
of Moses was terminated, water baptism
became obsolete. How then are those ref-
erences to "baptism," which are numer-
ous in the epistles (e.g., Rom. 6:3-4; Gal.
3:27), to be explained? Supposedly, they
refer a form of "Spirit baptism," which is
effected the moment a person trusts in
Christ; it is denied that these references
have anything to do with water baptism.
What shall we say to these matters?
(1) The law of Moses was terminated at
the cross (Eph. 2:15-16; Col. 2:14). The
water baptism mentioned in the book of
Acts (cf. 8:36ff) was thus not a Jewish
ceremony. (2) The most obvious refuta-
tion of this false idea is found in Mat-
thew's record of the great commission. In
that account, the Lord bids his followers:
"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them . . . and
lo I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world" (28:19). Now here are
two important facts about this passage.
First, the "baptizing" is clearly a reference
to water baptism, because it has a human
administrator, which "Spirit baptism"
does not (Matt. 3:11). Second, the imple-
mentation of this commission is essential
for the reception of the Lord's promise
that he will always (unto the end of the
world) be with those who are carrying
out this commission. In other words, the
baptism here contemplated will last until
the end of time. Water baptism is thus a
permanent feature of the Christian sys-
tem. (3) If there is no water baptism to-
day, then there is no way to enter the
kingdom, for it is by the birth of "water"
(i.e., baptism) that one enters the king-
dom of God (Jn. 3:5; cf. I Cor. 12:13). The
ultra-dispensational view of baptism con-
tradicts the teaching of the New Testa-
ment.
Baptism for Infants
Another common error associated with
baptism is the notion that it can be ad-
ministered to infants as well as adults. It
is suggested, for instance, that baptism
was symbolically pictured by circumci-
sion. Colossians 2:11-12 is employed as a
proof-text for this position. Since circum-
cision was for infants, it is contended that
baptism is similarly for infants today.
There are several major flaws in this argu-
ment. (1) If circumcision typifies baptism,
in the sense argued by pedobaptists, then
only males should receive baptism be-
cause only males were circumcised. (2)
The only analogy between circumcision
and baptism, as per Colossians 2:11-12,
has to do with the fact that both involved
"putting off the flesh." Whereas circum-
31
cision severed the flesh literally, so in
baptism one determines to sever himself
from fleshly pursuits. That exhausts the
connection between circumcision and
baptism. (3) Since baptism is "for the re-
mission of sins" (Acts 2:38), it is inap-
propriate for infants, because infants
have no sin (Matt. 18:3; I Cor. 14:20).
Infant baptism is unknown in the New
Testament. As J. L. Jacobi, a Lutheran
theologian, confessed: "Infant baptism
was established neither by Christ nor the
apostles."1
"Baptism is not a magical ritual
that automatically bestows redemp-
tion. It is simply the appointed
means by which God cleanses the
alien sinner through the blood of
his Son."
Sprinkling Is an Acceptable Mode
of Baptism
It is a well-known fact that many re-
ligious groups, in the administration of
what they call "baptism," do not im-
merse; rather, they either pour water, or
sprinkle it, upon the candidate's head.
But this procedure ignores the following
facts: (1) The Greek word bapto means to
"immerse"—nothing else. So the stan-
dard Greek lexicons affirm.2 Note that the
word is translated "dip" in passages
where there is no theological bias in-
volved (cf. Lk. 16:24; Jn. 13:26). (2) The
New Testament makes it quite plain that
baptism involves a burial and resurrec-
tion (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12); sprinkling and
pouring certainly do not require this. (3)
History is explicit regarding the fact that
sprinking/pouring are post-apostolic in-
novations. The historian Mosheim de-
clares that baptism, in the first century,
"was performed by an immersion of the
whole body in the baptismal font."3
 Baptism Is a Symbol of Salvation
A common denominational declaration
regarding the purpose of baptism is this:
"Baptism is a mere symbol of salvation. It
is an outward sign of an inward grace."
Frequently I Peter 3:21 will be employed
in an attempt to prove this assertion. Bap-
tist writer B. H. Carroll, in his discussion
of I Peter 3:21, declared that baptism
"saves us in a figure, not reality."4 There
is absolutely no New Testament support
for this allegation. Consider the follow-
ing:
(1) The Bible plainly teaches that bap-
tism is "for the remission of sins" (Acts
2:38), it is to "wash away your sins" (Acts
22:16), it puts one "into Christ" (Rom. 6:4,
Gal. 3:27), etc. (2) In every New Testa-
ment passage where baptism and salva-
tion are mentioned together, baptism
always comes before salvation (cf. Mk.
16:16; Acts 2:38; I Pet. 3:21). (3) I Peter 3:21
does not say that baptism merely saves
figuratively. What it does teach is this:
"If understanding the design of
baptism is unnecessary, why is the
purpose so frequently attached to
the command in the New Testa-
ment?"
Noah and his family were saved through
water (i.e., they were transported by
means of water from a world of sin to a
cleansed environment). Our salvation is
the anti-type ("like-figure"—Grk., anti-
tupos) of that. The anti-type is the reality.
By baptism we are conveyed from the
state of guilt to that of redemption. Robert
Stein, Baptist scholar, has recently ac-
knowledged: "At times salvation is said
to come about through baptism. Here
once again we can mention 1 Peter 3:21,
where baptism is clearly said to save. The
32
only way that we can separate baptism
from salvation in this statement is by at-
tributing to the word baptism a meaning
different from which it usually bears."5
Elsewhere Dr. Stein declares that any at-
tempt to spiritualize the water of I Peter
3:21 "drowns in the flood waters men-
tioned in verse 20!"6
Baptism Is a Work of Human Merit
Another twist to the foregoing error is
the charge that baptism is excluded from
the plan of redemption because it is a
"work." And since no one is saved by
"works" (Eph. 2:9), baptism cannot be a
part of our salvation. Our response is as
follows: (1) Baptism is a divine command
(Acts 10:48) given by the Lord; to classify
it as one of the works of human merit
disdained in Ephesians 2:9, is a gross
form of wickedness. (2) If baptism is a
work of human merit, then those who
receive it, believing that it is "for the
remission of sins," have trusted in the
wrong Savior, and thus remain lost. No
one can therefore patronizingly say: "We
believe you are wrong on baptism, but
we still accept you as brother in Christ."
That is nonsense. (3) The New Testament
clearly denies that baptism is a work of
human merit. Paul declared that we are
not saved by works of human righteous-
ness, but that we are saved by the "wash-
ing of regeneration" (Tit. 3:5)—which is
an allusion to baptism.7 The two are thus
not in the same category. When one is
raised in baptism, it is a "working of
God" (Col. 2:12), not a meritorious act of
human effort.
Baptismal Regeneration
The Roman Catholic Church holds to
the dogma of "baptismal regeneration,"
i.e., the idea that there is merit in the rite
of baptism itself, separate from any pre-
liminary obedience (e.g., faith or repen-
tance). This is why the Roman Church
administers what it calls "baptism" (it is
rarely immersion) to infants, aborted
fetuses, and even the insane.8 This is a
woefully erroneous theology. The Scrip-
tures teach that both faith in Christ (Mk.
16:16), and repentance of sin (Acts 2:38),
are conscious acts of obedience which
must precede the reception of immersion.
Baptism is not a magical ritual that auto-
matically bestows redemption. It is sim-
ply the appointed means by which God
cleanses the alien sinner through the
blood of his Son. And those who accuse
the churches of Christ of practicing "bap-
tismal regeneration" do so either igno-
rantly or maliciously.
Baptism Must Be Administered in
the Name of "Jesus Only"
Preachers of the "oneness" Pentecostal
persuasion argue that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit are the same person,
and that person is Jesus. It is thus con-
tended that in order for the rite to be
valid, the words "in the name of Jesus"
must be uttered when baptism is admin-
istered. Actually, no passage mentioning
baptism gives instructions as to what, if
anything, is to be said when immersing a
person. Matthew 28:19 connects baptism
with the phrase "the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit," but this verse is not sug-
gesting a verbal formula to be spoken at the
baptismal scene. The Lord is simply de-
claring that when one is immersed, he is
entering into a relationship with the God-
head three. The term "name" signifies to
become the "possession of," and to come
under "the protection of," the one whose
name he bears.9 A comparison of several
passages in which the term "name" is
associated with baptism will certainly re-
veal that no precise verbal pattern of
words is indicated (cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts
2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Several of these
verses merely indicate that immersion is
to be performed by the "authority" of
Christ. If there is no difficulty in under-
33
standing that when we are required to do
everything ("whatsoever") "in the name of
the Lord" (Col. 3:17), no demand is being
made for a vocalized formula, why can't
the same principle be recognized with
reference to baptism?
Not Necessary to Understand That
Baptism Is Essential to Salvation
It is becoming increasingly common for
some to argue that one's baptism is valid
so long as it is done "to obey God," re-
gardless of whether the candidate under-
stands its specific design or not, i.e., that
it is "for the remission of sins" (or some
equivalent expression). We believe this to
be a mistaken viewpoint. The following
questions put this issue in sharper focus.
(1) If understanding the design of baptism
is unnecessary, why is the purpose so
frequently attached to the command in
the New Testament? (2) If it is essential to
understand that Jesus died "for the re-
mission of sins" (Matt. 26:28), why isn't it
necessary to understand that immersion
is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38)?
(3) If "obeying God" is the sole intellec-
tual criterion for validating one's baptism,
would not virtually everyone who has
been immersed be a Christian, since all
who submit to baptism do so to obey
(certainly not to disobey) the Lord? (4)
Does not obeying "from the heart" (Rom.
6:17) imply that true obedience involves a
comprehension of what one is doing (cf.
Matt. 13:15)?
Baptism is a very serious matter. One
cannot afford to be wrong on this vital
issue. Let us thus encourage a careful
study of this theme.
ENDNOTES
1 J. L. Jacobi, "Baptism," Cyclopedia of Bibli-
cal Literature, John Kitto, Ed. (New York:
American Book Exchange, 1880), Vol. I, p. 287.
2 Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Ex-
egetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), Vol. I, p. 192.
 3 J. L. Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History (Rose-
mead, CA: Old Paths Book Club, 1959), Vol. I,
p. 36.
4 B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the En-
glish Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), Vol. 6,
p. 218.
5 Robert H. Stein, Difficult Passages in the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990),
p. 335.
6Ibid., p. 330.
7 Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson admits
that the expression washing of regeneration is
"probably" a "reference to baptism," though
What Is Faith?
Winford Claiborne
T he Bible does
not provide
precise definitions of
words and phrases.
It does, however,
use them in contexts
where we can dis-
cern their meanings.
Love is a good ex-
ample of how the
Bible uses words in contexts which give
us insight into the meaning of words.
Paul does not tell us what love means;
he tells us how love behaves. "Love suf-
fers long, and is kind. . . . Does not be-
have itself unseemly; seeks not her own"
(I Cor. 13:4-5). From Paul's expressions in
the great love chapter, we can easily un-
derstand what love is since we know how
it behaves.
What Faith Is
Walter E. Vine says concerning faith
(pistis): It is "primarily, firm persuasion, a
conviction based upon hearing (akin to
peitho, to persuade)."1 The New Testa-
34
he denies the plain language of the passage
which connects the washing with salvation.
See Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nash-
ville: Broadman, 1931), Vol. IV, p. 607.
8 Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1961), p. 45.
9 William Arndt & F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 575.
Wayne Jackson of Stockton, California, is a
regular writer for THE SPIRITUAL SWORD, and
is known for his careful research and clarity.
ment often uses faith as a synonym of
trust. "And if Christ be not risen, then is
our preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain" (I Cor. 15:14). The Corinthians had
complete trust in Christ's resurrection
from the dead. But if Christians were
not going to be raised, then their trust
in Christ had been misplaced. "And if
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain;
you are yet in your sins" (I Cor. 15:17).
The word "faith" is often used to mean
trustworthiness or faithfulness. "For what
if some did not believe? shall their un-
belief make the faith of God without ef-
fect" (Rom. 3:3)? The Revised Version
translates pistin by "faithfulness of God."
Paul commands servants not to appropri-
ate another's property for oneself (KJV,
"purloin"), "but showing fidelity; that
they may adorn the doctrine of God our
Savior in all things" (Tit. 2:10). Faith as
faithfulness or fidelity not only applies to
our conduct toward God but toward our
fellowmen as well.
The word "faith" is also used in refer-
ence to what one believes—the content of
one's faith. That is especially true of Paul's
epistles. A few examples should be en-
lightening. "And the word of God in-
creased; and the number of disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a
great number of priests were obedient
to the faith" (Acts 6:7). After Paul had
obeyed the gospel, there were under-
standably some Christians who were still
afraid of him. He says he was "unknown
by face unto the churches of Judea which
were in Christ: but they had heard only,
That he which persecuted us in times
past now preaches the faith which once
he destroyed" (Gal. 1:22-23). Probably the
best known example of this use of the
word "faith" is in Jude. "Beloved, when I
gave all diligence to write unto you of the
common salvation, it was needful for me
to write unto you, and exhort you that
you should earnestly contend for the
faith which was once delivered unto the
saints. . . . But you, beloved, building up
yourselves on your most holy faith, pray-
ing in the Holy Spirit."
Faith in the Book of Hebrews
No other book of the New Testament
has such a long dissertation on faith as
does the book of Hebrews. Although He-
brews does not give a definition of faith,
it does provide wonderful insight into the
nature and the action of faith. "Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).
The Greek word translated "substance" is
hupostasis and means that which stands
under, the foundation, that which pro-
duces confidence. "Evidence" is from
elengchos and signifies proof, proving and
hence inner conviction.2 Both of these
words indicate the need for a firm foun-
dation for faith. Faith is not a feeling, an
opinion or a hunch. It is solid enough to
undergird our hopes and to prove the
things we have not seen. Both words—
substance and evidence—tell us that faith
must be founded on fact or it is not faith
at all. If confidence and proof have no
35
foundation, we are guilty of merely wish-
ing or dreaming. And wishing does not
make it so.
The great heroes of faith in Hebrews 11
were men and women who had enough
proof to have complete confidence in the
promises of God. "By faith Abel offered
unto God a more excellent sacrifice than
Cain, by which he obtained witness that
he was righteous, God testifying of his
gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaks"
(Heb. 11:4). Unless God had revealed to
Abel and to Cain what he expected of
them, he was arbitrary and capricious in
dealing with them. They had to know
what God wanted from them. "So then
faith comes by hearing and hearing by
the word of God" (Rom. 10:17). God
spoke to Cain and to Abel; they either
trusted what he said or they did not. Abel
trusted God and complied with the Lord's
commands. Cain did not trust him and
was condemned for his lack of faith and
faithfulness.
Moses is another example of complete
trust in the promises of God. "By faith
Moses, when he was come to years, re-
fused to be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter. Choosing rather to suffer afflic-
tion with the people of God, than to en-
joy the pleasures of sin for a season"
(Heb. 11:24-25). If God had not spoken to
Moses or if he had talked out of both
sides of his mouth, Moses could not have
had confidence enough to trust what God
said. He would have been foolish to sacri-
fice his position and power in Egypt for
weak or nonexistent promises. God had
been faithful in his dealings with Moses
and the Israelites; so Moses had every
reason to trust in God's word.
Faith and Knowledge
Unbelievers often accuse Christians of
leaving their brains outside the church
building when they go to study God's
word and to worship God. Unbelievers
think of faith as wishing, dreaming and
imagining. But for faith to be biblical faith
it must be founded on fact. Faith is closely
related to knowledge. J. Gresham Ma-
chen, one of America's most distinguished
Greek scholars, spoke very critically of
those who equate faith with ignorance.
"If the growth of ignorance is lamentable
in secular education, it is tenfold worse in
the sphere of the Christian religion and in
the sphere of the Bible."3 Dr. Machen
insists that Christian college professors
must help their students "get straight in
their minds the doctrinal and historical
contents of the Christian religion."4 In
other words, if students and adults do
not know the truths of New Testament
Christianity, they cannot have faith in
God and in his Son Jesus Christ. Dr.
Machen further affirms: "What is called
faith after the substraction of that element
(knowledge) is not faith at all. . . . All
faith involves knowledge and issues in
knowledge."5
What kind of faith would Abraham
have had in a God he did not know? If
God had not spoken to Abraham, how
could Abraham have trusted God? "By
faith Abraham, when he was called to go
out into a place which he should after
receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he
went out, not knowing whither he went"
(Heb. 11:8). Abraham's trust in God rested
on God's previous dealings with Abra-
ham. God had never failed to abide by his
promises to Abraham. Abraham knew he
could rely on God to fulfill exactly what
he had promised him. Abraham's faith
was built on a solid foundation—a foun-
dation of God's faithfulness.
Often in the New Testament, faith and
knowledge are intimately related. This
truth became very plain to me when
Thomas B. Warren required his students
at Harding Graduate School of Religion to
examine every use of the words knowl-
edge and faith in the New Testament. We
found that what the Bible says we must
know it also says we must believe. One
example will have to suffice. Jesus said to
36
the Jews, "I said therefore unto you, that
you shall die in your sins: for if you be-
lieve not that I am he, you shall die in
your sins" (Jn. 8:24). In the same context
Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the
son of man, then shall you know that I
am he, and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father has taught me, I speak
these things" (Jn. 8:28). From Christ's
viewpoint, there is no contradiction be-
tween faith and knowledge.
But did not Paul say, "For we walk by
faith, not by sight" (II Cor. 5:7)? Paul was
not downgrading a Christian's knowing
that he might believe. Walking by faith
does not exclude knowledge. It simply
says that we have not seen God; nor have
we seen Jesus Christ; nor have we seen
heaven. Concerning God, Christ and
heaven it can be said, as it was said spe-
cifically of Christ: "whom having not
seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye
see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with
joy unspeakable and full of glory" (I Pet.
1:8). Peter may have been reflecting the
words he heard Christ speak to Thomas.
"Thomas, because you have seen me, you
have believed: blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed" (Jn.
20:29). All of us believe in people, in
places and in events we have never seen.
We have an abundance of evidence that
Abraham Lincoln lived, served as presi-
dent of this great country and died at the
hands of an assassin, but no one of our
generation ever saw Lincoln.
Faith and Works
Calvinists argue that faith alone saves
men and women. If we have to obey any
precepts, our salvation is not by faith
alone. Is that the way Bible writers dealt
with the topic of faith and works? He-
brews 11 shows the relationship of faith to
works. "By faith Abel offered unto God
a more excellent sacrifice than Cain"
(Heb. 11:4). "By faith Noah . . . moved
with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of
his house" (Heb. 11:7). "By faith Abra-
ham . . . obeyed. . . . By faith Abraham
. . . offered up Isaac" (Heb. 11:8, 17).
These examples connect faith with works
or obedience. What right have we to dis-
connect what God has connected?
"We are not saved by faith alone.
We are not save by works alone.
We are saved by a faith which
works by love."
No New Testament writer makes
plainer or more emphatic the truth that
faith and works are interrelated than
James. How much good does faith do
for the poor when it says, "Be warmed
and filled," and does not provide food,
clothing and shelter? "What does it
profit, my brethren, though a man say he
has faith and have not works? can faith
save him" (Jas. 2:14)? As vital as faith is—
and salvation without faith is impossible
(Heb. 11:6)—does faith alone save? "You
see then how that by works a man is
justified, and not by faith only" (Jas.
2:24). We are not saved by faith alone. We
are not saved by works alone. We are
saved by a faith which works by love
(Gal. 5:6).
The Lordship Salvation Controversy
In recent years, a controversy among
Calvinists has erupted on the religious
scene. One side of the controversy—led
primarily by Zane Hodges of Dallas Theo-
logical Seminary—maintains that men
are saved by confessing their faith in
Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. Hodges
insists that salvation is a gift from God
without any commitment on man's part.
He finds support for his view in the fact
that Jesus did not demand that the
Samaritan woman change her life. "Jesus
. . . said nothing to (the Samaritan
37
woman) about the repair of her life
which, plainly, was so urgently needed."6
Hodges is teaching that confessing Jesus
as Lord would require us to produce the
works which Jesus commanded. Salva-
tion would no longer be by faith alone.
The leader on the other side of the con-
troversy is John F. Mac Arthur, Jr., presi-
dent of The Master's College and
Seminary in California. MacArthur ar-
gues that "no promise of salvation is ever
extended to those who refuse to accede to
Christ's lordship. Thus there is no salva-
tion except 'lordship' salvation."7 Even
though MacArthur is a Calvinist scholar
and a premillennialist, he uses the same
arguments against Zane Hodges and his
followers which gospel preachers have
used against the Calvinists for years. The
outcome of this controversy should prove
to be very interesting.
Conclusion
Faith based on the truth of God's word
provides a solid foundation for time and
for eternity. "Without faith it is impos-
sible to please God" (Heb. 11:6). But faith
alone is not faith at all; it is a dead faith.
"For as the body without the spirit is
dead, so faith without works is dead
also" (Jas. 2:26).
ENDNOTES
1 Merrill F. Unger & William White, Jr.,
W. E. Vine: An Expository Dictionary of Biblical
Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1984), p. 401.
2 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A
Creek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 248.
3 J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Com-
pany, 1946), p. 20.
4 Ibid., p. 21.
5 Ibid., p. 41.
6 John MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to
Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1988), p. 48.
7 Ibid., p. 28.
NOTE: John MacArthur's book, The Gospel
According to Jesus, is said to have begun the
debate over lordship salvation and his latest
book, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the
Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), has
The Case of the Thief
Wendell Winkler
A pparently the
penitent thief
who was crucified
with our Lord was
saved. To him Christ
said, "Today shalt
thou be with me in
paradise" (Lk. 23:43).
But Jesus taught in
John 8:21 that if a
person dies in his sins he cannot go where
the Lord is. Evasive denominational evan-
gelists have deceived the biblically unin-
formed by misapplying the account of
this thief as they have often reasoned,
"The thief on the cross was not baptized;
therefore, there is no absolute need in our
being baptized either." But, is such the
case? In our study, let us observe the fol-
lowing five points:
I. First, No Man Can Prove the
Thief Was Not Baptized
But, we are informed, "There is no
mention of his having been baptized."
Such is admitted. However, on this basis,
we can prove that faith in Christ is not
necessary for salvation, for there is not
one statement to the effect that Lazarus,
who went to paradise (Lk. 16:19-31), be-
lieved in Christ. What proves too much
proves nothing.
38
ended the debate. The author and publisher
may be a little too optimistic in their appraisal
of the debate.
Winford Claiborne is a former professor of Bible
at Freed-Hardeman University and now preaches
in Fayetteville, Tennessee.
II. Secondly, It Is Altogether
Possible That the Thief Had
Been Baptized
(1) Notice the widespread coverage and ac-
ceptance of John's baptism. Acts 13:23-25
informs us, "John had first preached be-
fore his coming the baptism of repen-
tance to all the people of Israel." As John
preached the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins, "There went out
unto him all the land of Judea, and they of
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him
in the river of Jordan" (Mk. 1:4-5). Mat-
thew 3:5-6 relates, "Then went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region
round about Jordan, and were baptized of
him in Jordan, confessing their sins." In
Luke 3:7 we read of "the multitude that
came forth to be baptized of him." Luke
3:21 adds, "Now when all the people were
baptized." Then, John 4:1 informs us,
"That Jesus made and baptized more dis-
ciples than John." Indeed, there was wide-
spread coverage and acceptance of the
baptism of John. And, let us not forget,
John's baptism was for the remission of
sins (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3). Such, of course,
was in anticipation of the shed blood of
our Lord, without which blood remission
of sins would not have been possible
(Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22). It was altogether
possible that the thief was in these vast
numbers just observed.
 (2) Observe how well informed the thief
was. When dying, "He said unto Jesus,
Lord, remember me when thou comest
into thy kingdom" (Lk. 23:42). This text
implies (a) that he knew Christ was to
have a kingdom, and (b) that such was to
be after our Lord died. Too, the statement
implies that (c) he understood the Lord
had the power to bless. But the baptism
of John, which was for the remission of
sins, was connected with the preaching of
the kingdom (Matt. 3:1-3; Mk. 1:1-5). In-
deed, it is possible that the thief on the
cross had been baptized.
(3) "But he was a thief!" we are informed.
Such would not militate against his hav-
ing been baptized. He could have been
among the many of the Lord's disciples
who had gone back "and walked no more
with him" (Jn. 6:66). After all, apostasy is
possible (Lk. 8:11-15; II Pet. 2:20-22; I Cor.
10:12).
III. Thirdly, Observe That the New
Testament Was Not in Force When
the Lord Made His Promise to
the Thief
(1) Hebrews 9:15-17. This text states,
"And for this cause he is the mediator of
the new testament, that by means of
death, for the redemption of the trans-
gressions that were under the first testa-
ment, they which are called might receive
the promise of eternal inheritance. For
where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. For
a testament is of force after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while
the testator liveth." The following il-
lustration developed by someone, is most
expressive. There is a rich man named
Mr. Doe. His will has been prepared: but,
it is not in force, for he has not died. A
poor widow comes to him asking for as-
sistance, and he helps her liberally. Then,
a cripple comes asking for assistance, and
he also helps him liberally. On and on
this goes for years. There is nothing out
39
of order in all of this since he can dispose
of his wealth as he desires while he is
living. But, he dies. His will is then
found, probated, and the executor goes
to work disposing of his estate, according
to the terms of his will. The poor widow
previously mentioned comes and asks for
help; but she is refused. She replies, "But
if Mr. Doe were alive, he would help me."
The executor states, "I do not doubt this,
but he is now dead and I have no author-
ity to break his will. I can only dispose of
his estate as his will directs." Thus, it is
with the will of our Lord. While on earth,
Christ could say to the thief, "Today shalt
thou be with me in paradise" (Lk. 23:43).
To the man sick of palsy he could say,
"Thy sins be forgiven thee" (Mk. 2:5).
To the sinful woman in Simon's house
he could say, "Thy sins are forgiven"
(Lk. 7:48). To the adulteress he could say,
"Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin
no more" (Jn. 8:11). All of the preceding took
place before Christ's last will had gone into
effect. Again, why? "For where a testa-
ment is, there must also of necessity be
the death of the testator" (Heb. 9:16).
Christ having since died, his will is now
in effect; and, we are saved only by com-
plying with the terms of his will. And, his
will reads, "He that believeth and is bap-
tized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16). Also,
"The penitent thief died to sin. The
impenitent thief died in sin. The
Lord died for sin."
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and
be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Incidentally, suppose
there was a Mr. Doe, a very rich man,
who died and in his will he said, "He that
believeth and is baptized shall receive one
thousand dollars." How many people do
you think would have problems under-
standing that baptism was essential to the
receiving of the one thousand dollars?
To argue that baptism is not necessary
for man today, "since the thief was never
baptized," is analogous to affirming we
need not pay income tax today since
Abraham Lincoln never did. You see, Lin-
coln died before income tax became a law.
(2) The requirements of an effective will and
how Christ meets these requirements, (a) The
individual making the will must be of
age. Was not Christ past thirty years of
age when he died? (b) The individual
making the will must be of sound mind.
Christ put to silence and shame the
wisest men of his day; yea, even when he
was but a child (Lk. 2:46-47). (c) The indi-
vidual making the will must have some-
thing to give or bequeath. Ephesians 1:7
reads, "In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of
sins, according to the riches of his grace."
(d) The will must have witnesses. The
Lord's apostles served in this capacity
(Acts 1:8; 5:32). (e) The will becomes oper-
ative only after the death of the testator.
Such is plainly stated in Hebrews 9:15-17.
(f) Wills have executors whose responsi-
bility it is to see that the terms of said will
are duly respected and properly ex-
ecuted. The Lord's apostles served in this
capacity as they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 16:13; Eph. 3:1-12).
(g) After a will has been properly pro-
bated there is no appeal from the terms
and conditions of the will. Since the
Lord's will has been probated by the very
court of heaven itself, and since the will
sets forth the plan of salvation, there can
be no change in the terms or conditions of
salvation. To seek to do so renders one a
subject of the anathema of heaven (Gal.
1:6-9). We cannot add to nor subtract from
the forever-established and divinely-
probated will of our Lord (Rev. 22:18-19).
We cannot go beyond that which is writ-
ten (I Cor. 4:6; II Jn. 9-11) and require less
40
than the Lord required; nor, can we go
beyond that which is written and require
more than the Lord has required. Baalam
was right when he said, "I cannot go be-
yond the word of the Lord my God, to do
less or more" (Num. 22:18). Now, when
"the case of the thief" is studied in the
light of these principles governing wills,
the argument that "the thief was not bap-
tized, so men do not have to be baptized
today" falls into utter insignificance and
is thus rendered invalid.
IV. Fourthly, Let Us Observe That
the Thief on the Cross Does Not
Constitute an Example for
Us Today
(1) When the thief was promised paradise,
the new testament was not operative (Heb.
9:15-17).
(2) When the thief was promised paradise,
the Lord's great commission had not yet been
given (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 'l6; Lk.
24:46-49; Jn. 20:20-23).
(3) When the thief was promised paradise
the kingdom of our Lord had not yet been
established (Mk. 9:11; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4).
(4) When the thief was promised paradise,
the apostles of our Lord had not yet started
using the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:18,
19; Acts 2:36-38).
(5) A special note. It is handling the word
of God inaccurately to pass over the thou-
sands of cases of conversion in the book
of Acts (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 22, 26)
and go back to the account of the thief on
the cross. Indeed, one is hard pressed in
his efforts to establish the non-essentiality
of baptism to thus handle the word of
God.
V. Lastly, A Word About the
Other Thief
The other thief remained obstinate, re-
bellious, blasphemous and impenitent to
the end. Such was the case (1) though he
was aware the one dying next to him was
the Christ, the evidence bearing witness
to this fact being overwhelming, (2)
though he was experiencing excruciating
agony and (3) though he knew his death
was imminent. How could such ever be?
How do you explain such? There is only
one answer: a man can sin away the day
of grace. He can persist in sin to the ex-
tent that repentance is rendered impos-
sible. "He that being often reproved
hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be de-
stroyed, and that without remedy" (Prov.
29:1). A person's conscience can become
seared with a hot iron, thus being ren-
dered insensitive to the stimulus of God's
grace, mercy and love (I Tim. 4:2). Ephe-
sians 4:19 reads, "Who being past feeling
have given themselves over unto lascivi-
ousness, to work all uncleanness with
greediness." Benjamin Franklin, of resto-
ration fame, observed that it is true that
after death one cannot turn to the Lord;
but, it is also true that some cannot turn
to the Lord before death. A cork pressed
under water one hundred times will rise
again. However, if pressed down two
Acts 2:38—A Textual Study
Thomas B. Warren
T here are many
crucial subjects
dealt with in the
Bible, but none sur-
passes the impor-
tance of what the
alien sinner must do
to be saved from his
sins (to become a
Christian).1
Sadly, many in the Lord's church today,
including elders, preachers, teachers,
et al., have rejected the plan of salvation
which is plainly taught in the New Testa-
ment. One way they do this is to claim
41
hundred feet below the surface, it cannot
rise again. Why? The pressure of the
water above counteracts the buoyancy
and causes it to sink. Yes, you can sink
beyond the capability of rising again.
Conclusion
(1) Review. In this study we have ob-
served: (a) No man can prove the thief
was not baptized, (b) it is altogether pos-
sible that the thief had been baptized, (c)
the New Testament was not in force when
the Lord made his promise to the thief,
(d) that the thief on the cross does not
constitute an example for us today, and
(e) a word about the other thief.
(2) Three died that day. The penitent thief
died to sin. The impenitent thief died in
sin. The Lord died for sin.
Wendell Winkler is chairman of the Depart-
ment of Bible at Faulkner University in Mont-
gomery, Alabama.
that sinners are saved by grace atone with-
out any acts of obedience. That this doc-
trine is false is seen in the fact that if
it were true, then every person—without
exception—would be saved. However,
Jesus himself made clear that, in contrast
to the few people who will be saved, many
people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Thus, it
is obvious that salvation from sin is con-
ditional—no sinner can be saved without
complying with what the Bible demands.
A Brief Look at Mark 16:16
Because the evidence of Jesus' state-
ment which is recorded in Mark 16:16 is so
powerfully conclusive, it will be briefly
noted here (with special concern with how
it fits so marvellously with Acts 2:38).
In the original Greek of Mark 16:16, it
is absolutely "ungetoverable" that both
"believeth" and "is baptized" are aorist
participles. This importance is obvious be-
cause the Greek New Testament never
uses the aorist participle to refer to action
which is subsequent to (occurs after) the
action of the main verb in the sentence
(see Robertson and Davis, A New Short
Grammar of the Greek New Testament,
p. 297). Ray, Summers, renowned Baptist
Greek scholar, in his book, The Essentials
of the Greek New Testament, agreed with
Robertson and Davis that the aorist par-
ticiple never indicates action which is sub-
sequent to the action of the main verb in
the sentence. What does this mean? It
means that whatever action is indicated
by an aorist participle cannot refer to ac-
tion which occurs after the action of the
main verb in the sentence. This fact is
very important!
Thus, since in Mark 16:16 both "believ-
eth" and "is baptized" are aorist participles
in the original Greek, it follows that nei-
ther "believeth" nor "is baptized" can
occur after salvation. Thus, this pass-
age constitutes proof that baptism comes
before—not after—salvation from sin. Thus,
the passage plainly teaches that no one is
saved by the blood of Christ until after he
both believes and is baptized by the au-
thority of Christ.
So, let us see how this truth fits with
another passage of scripture.
Acts 2:38
The second chapter of Acts is an espe-
cially crucial one. This is the case because
it records the events of the day (the day of
Pentecost) on which the gospel of Christ
became the law in force.
In obedience to the instructions which
Jesus Christ gave in the Great Com-
mission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk.
42
24:44-49), on the day of Pentecost the
apostles (under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit) preached the gospel of Christ
as a law in force for the very first time in
all of history (Acts 2:1-41).
While all of the apostles preached on
the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14, 37), only
the sermon which was preached by Peter
is recorded in the New Testament. In that
sermon, Peter set out proof that the Jews
(whom he was addressing) had crucified,
not a mere human being who falsely
claimed to be the Messiah, but the very
Son of God (the Christ). In closing the
evidential part of his sermon, Peter de-
clared, "Therefore [since he had given
them proof] let all the house of Israel
know assuredly that God hath made him
both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye
crucified" (Acts 2:36; cf. 2:22-23).
"The second chapter of Acts is an
especially crucial one. This is the
case because it records the events of
the day (the day of Pentecost) on
which the gospel of Christ became
the law in force."
Many of the Jews were convinced by
Peter's sermon, and, as a result, they came
to realize that they were guilty of the
heinous crime (sin) of crucifying the Son
of God (the Christ, the Messiah). This
conviction led them to ask, "What shall
we do?" In realization of the heinousness
of their crime, they were asking to be told
what to do in order for their sins to be
forgiven. Thus, it is clear that, at the time
they asked the question, they were al-
ready believers in Jesus Christ as the cru-
cified and resurrected Son of God (Acts
2:22-35) but were not yet forgiven of their
sins! This constitutes proof that the doc-
trine that sinners are saved the very mo-
ment they believe in Jesus Christ as the
Son of God is simply false! They were
believers, but they were not saved! (Think
once more of the truth on this matter
which is set out in Mark 16:15-16.)
What did Peter then tell them? Did he
tell them (as denominational preachers
tell their hearers), "There is nothing more
which you must do—you are already
saved"? No, he did not! Why not? Because
they had not yet done all that is necessary
to be saved (according to the gospel plan
of salvation).
What Peter did tell them is recorded in
Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ unto the remis-
sion of your sins; and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit."
The meaning of Peter's reply to their
questions should be easily understood by
all. Clearly and simply, he tells those lost
believers in Jesus Christ that they must (1)
repent, and (2) be baptized. For what
purpose? So that their sins might be for-
given!
It is sad to note that, in spite of the
simplicity of Peter's answer to such a
simple question, there are many people
who outrightly reject the truth (here
stated by the Apostle Peter) that, in order
to be saved (to become a Christian), peni-
tent believers must be baptized (im-
mersed in water unto the remission of
sins) in order to be saved by the blood of
Christ (cf. Eph. 1:7; Rom. 6:3-5; et al.). But
in order to deny this necessity, they must
reject the obvious truth of Acts 2:38.
What tactics are used by some in rejecting
the plain, simple truth of this matter in
regard to Acts 2:38?
Let it be noted clearly that no one can
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
until after he has repented of the sins
which he has committed prior to his hav-
ing been baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ. It follows, therefore, that if "eis"
(Greek) means "because of" (as Baptists
claim), then one is to be baptized not to be
saved but because he has already been saved.
It also would follow from this false doc-
43
trine that one must repent because he has
already been saved—that is, saved before
and without repenting of one's sins. But
obviously this is false doctrine (Lk. 24:47;
Acts 3:19; 17:30; et al.).
Why have various denominations es-
poused these two obviously false doc-
trines: (1) that "unto" in Acts 2:38 means
"because of" or "on account of" and (2)
that the prepositional phrase "unto the
remission of sins" simply cannot modify
both "repent ye" and "be baptized every
one of you"?
Let us now consider the two basic
questions the correct answers to which
prove that the denominational stance on
Acts 2:38 is simply false doctrine.
First Question: Does "Unto" Mean
"Because Of" in Acts 2:38?
Sound scholarship answers this ques-
tion with one voice: "No! 'Unto' in Acts
2:38 does not meant 'because of.'" When
the apostle Peter told believers to ". . .be
baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ unto the remission of your
sins," he was telling them to submit to
the rite (i.e., to obey Christ in being bap-
tized) in order to be forgiven of their sins!
And, it must be noted, the penitent
believer is saved (when he is baptized)
not by water but by the blood of Christ
(Eph. 5:8-9). But the blood of Christ will
not be used by the Lord to forgive the sins
of anyone who is not "born of water and
the Spirit" (Jn. 3:5). Salvation is in Christ
(II Tim. 2:10) and one is baptized into
Christ (Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). No one
out of Christ has been saved!
Second Question: Can the
Prepositional Phrase "Unto the
Remission of Sins" Modify Both
Verbs ("Repent" and "Be
Baptized")?
Since the words of Peter were given in
answer to the question, "What shall we
do?", the context indicates that the phrase
"unto the remission of sins" not only can
but should be regarded as modifying both
"repent" and "be baptized."
Even outstanding Baptist scholars rec-
ognize this truth, in opposing the conten-
tion of Methodists that babies should be
baptized. J. M. Pendleton said, "It is clear
as the sun in heaven that the same per-
sons are commanded to repent and be
baptized." (Three Reasons for Being A Bap-
tist, p. 20.)
Another Baptist scholar, H. B. Hackett
said, "We connect naturally with both the
preceding verbs." (Commentary on the Acts
of the Apostles, p. 53.)
J. H. Thayer, outstanding Greek scholar
said, "I accept the rendering of the re-
vised version 'unto the remission of your
sins' (the eis expressing the end aimed at
and secured by the repentance and bap-
tism just previously enjoined)" (quoted
by J. W. Shepherd in Handbook on Baptism,
p. 356).
"Peter plainly told them to repent
and be baptized unto the remission
of sins. Clearly, these lost believers
are here commanded to do two
things in order to be forgiven."
This writer sent a diagram in English to
English scholars and a diagram in Greek
to Greek scholars in some of the most
prestigious universities of this nation.
The diagram indicated that the preposi-
tional phrase "unto the remission of sins"
modifies both "repent" and "be bap-
tized." These scholars were asked if there
is any reason, grammatically speaking,
why the sentence should not be thus dia-
grammed. Not one scholar gave a nega-
tive answer. They all agreed that "unto
44
the remission of sins" can modify both
"repent" and "be baptized."
When the people who had become be-
lievers in Christ as the Son of God (Acts
2:22-37) asked, "What shall we do?", they
had just been convicted of sin and, thus,
wanted to know what to do to be saved
from sin. Peter plainly told them to re-
pent and be baptized unto the remission
of sins. Clearly, these lost believers are
here commanded to do two things in order
to be forgiven. But this truth Baptists (and
other "salvation is by faith only" advo-
cates) must deny, if they are to be con-
sistent with their view of salvation. But it
is also clear that in denying that "unto the
remission of sins" can modify both verbs,
they deny what clearly is true: the be-
liever is instructed both to repent and be
baptized in order to obtain (by the blood
of Christ) the remission of his sins.
One cannot be saved without being
baptized in the name of (by the authority
of) Jesus Christ, and one cannot be bap-
tized in the name of Jesus Christ unless
he is baptized in order to be saved—not
because he thought he was already saved
before he was baptized. Obedience to the
gospel of Christ will save a lost person,
but obedience to a mere human doctrine
will not save anyone (Heb. 5:8-9; II Thess.
1:7-9; Matt. 7:13-23; II Thess. 2:10-12).
ENDNOTE
1 See the Warren-Ballard Debate on the plan
of salvation for a much more detailed study of
these matters. Published by National Christian
Press, Inc., P. O. Box 6709; Moore, OK 73153;
(405) 794-8298. (Dr. L. S. Ballard was regarded
by Baptists as one of their most capable de-
baters.)
Thomas B. Warren (Ph.D.) served for twenty
years as editor of THE SPIRITUAL SWORD. He
continues to maintain an active schedule of
speaking and writing. We appreciate his contri-
bution to this issue of THE SPIRITUAL SWORD.
 Guy N. Woods
1908-1993
Guy N. Woods passed away in Nash-
ville, Tennessee, on Wednesday evening,
December 8, 1993. Thus ended the life
and work of one of the most influential
men in the church in the twentieth cen-
tury.
Brother Woods graduated from Freed-
Hardeman, held a degree in law, wrote
Bible commentaries, edited the Gospel Ad-
vocate, conducted well over a hundred de-
bates, served as moderator of the Open
Forum at the Freed-Hardeman lecture-
ships for more than thirty years, and
spoke in gospel meetings from coast to
coast for over fifty years. He was a tireless
worker. For many years he wrote the
adult quarterly for the Gospel Advocate
Company. During this time he had occa-
sion to examine, and to comment upon,
every verse in the Bible. He wrote two
monumental volumes of Questions and
Answers, based upon his many years
of dealing with questions and contro-
versial issues at the Freed-Hardeman lec-
tureships.
The list of accomplishments, however,
does not tell the whole story. Those of us
who personally knew brother Woods saw
a side of him which the public seldom
knew. Because he often dealt with contro-
versy, some thought of him only as com-
bative and argumentative. How wrong
they were! When brother Woods dealt
with principles of biblical truth, he cer-
tainly was firm and forceful; but, in per-
sonal demeanor, he was a man of great
meekness, gentleness, and graciousness.
45
It was a delight to be with him. He was
truly a Christian gentleman.
He was a man of keen intellect. In addi-
tion to his scholarship in the field of bibli-
cal studies, he also mastered the study
of computers and amateur radio. When
he first acquired his amateur radio li-
cense (WA4KCN), he and I both lived in
Memphis. He came to see me one day to
demonstrate the operation of his radio
gear (a Collins KWM-2) which he had
installed in his automobile. He gave a call
and was answered by an operator aboard
a ship in the Gulf of Mexico! It was be-
cause of his enthusiasm and encourage-
ment that I later secured my amateur
radio license (WA4NVS). We had almost
daily contact for several years through the
wonderful medium of amateur radio.
The first debate I ever read was the
Woods-Nunnery Debate. My father gave it
to me when I was sixteen years of age
because I was discussing baptism with a
classmate at school. As I read that discus-
sion, I marvelled at the ease with which
brother Woods answered the various ob-
jections to the necessity of baptism. His
work in this debate was truly superb.
This debate book (now out of print) is a
microcosmic picture of an era which is
now forever gone. Conducted in 1946 at
the Cedar Hill Baptist Church near Par-
sons, Tennessee, this debate was repre-
sentative of the battles in which gospel
preachers often engaged in those days. It
was not a major debate with a major
opponent (such as Hardeman-Bogard or
Wallace-Norris), but it was far more typi-
cal of the day-to-day challenges which
confronted preachers of the day, and one
may get more of the "flavor of the times"
by reading this discussion than any other
I know.
In 1989, while passing through Par-
sons, Tennessee, I decided to seek out the
location of Cedar Hill Baptist Church,
where the debate transpired. To me, this
was a historical adventure. The old build-
ing was gone, but I found a brick building
located on the site where the old frame
structure once stood. I spoke with a man
in the community who remembered the
debate, conducted some forty-three years
before! Later, I wrote brother Woods about
the experience, and he related this inter-
esting anecdote:
One morning during the debate as I
was driving out to the community and
while about a half mile, as I recall, from
the building, I overtook a man walking
along the county road and obviously
headed for the debate. I stopped and
invited him to ride with me. I think he
did not recognize me until he had al-
ready accepted the invitation. The dis-
cussion waxed quite warm that day and
there was considerable feeling exhibited
on the part of the Baptists. Following
the afternoon service on my way back to
Parsons, I overtook the same man at
about the same place and headed for
home. Again, I stopped and invited him
to ride. Quite frankly and with obvious
46
coolness, he informed me that he did
not wish to ride with me!
Notwithstanding this amusing inci-
dent, brother Woods reported that this
was one of the most effective debates he
ever conducted and that some thirty-five
people were baptized as a result of this
discussion. I hope that someday this de-
bate will be reprinted.
Brother Woods was not only a friend to
me personally, but he was also a great
friend and encouragement to THE SPIRI-
TUAL SWORD and the Getwell church. It
was his practice for many years to preach
for the Getwell congregation on the last
Sunday of each year. This was one of the
few Sundays each year that he was at
home (when he lived in Memphis) and
not engaged in a gospel meeting at some
distant place. He often wrote to me to
commend THE SPIRITUAL SWORD and to
express his appreciation for the work
being done.
In 1984, brother Woods asked that I
write the introduction to Questions and
Answers, Volume II. I believe now as I did
then: "The name of Guy N. Woods will
take its place in future generations along-
side those of McGarvey, Hardeman,
Brewer, and others, whose contributions
to the Cause of Christ have endured long
after the principals themselves have
'crossed over the river to rest in the shade
of the trees.'"
—EDITOR
 The "Lordship Salvation" Controversy
H ave you heard of "lordship salvation"? This term has reference to a controversy
which is flaming today among "conservative" or "evangelical" denominations. On
the one hand is Zane Hodges, associated with Dallas Theological Seminary, who argues
that salvation is by faith only. On the other hand is John MacArthur, well-known writer
and president of The Master's College and Seminary, who says that true faith requires
submission to God. At issue is whether one must be obedient to Jesus (as Lord) in order to
be saved or whether one can simply believe in Jesus (as Savior). MacArthur contends for
lordship salvation, while Hodges argues for the non-lordship view.
What is fascinating about this controversy is that MacArthur is using fundamentally the
same arguments on Hodges that we have used throughout all of the years in dealing with
those who teach salvation by faith only! And there is no question that MacArthur is
getting the best of Hodges in the process. Forewords to MacArthur's book, The Gospel
According to Jesus, were written by two well-known conservative scholars. J. I. Packer says:
"Bare assent to the gospel, divorced from a transforming commitment to the living Christ,
is by biblical standards less than faith, and less than saving . . ." (p. ix). James Montgom-
ery Boice states "that faith without works is a dead faith and that no one will ever be saved
by a dead faith" (p. xii). Is this not what gospel preachers have always said?
For many years we have insisted that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), but
not by faith alone. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (Jas. 2:17).
Further, it is not so much a question of whether faith saves, but when faith saves. Does
faith save before it manifests itself in obedience? In Hebrews 11:30, we are told, "By faith
the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days." The walls
of Jericho fell down by faith, yes, but when? "After they were compassed about seven
days." Jesus said, "Not every one 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" (Matt.
7:21). Saving faith is obedient faith, the kind of faith that leads to submission to the will
of the Father.
The views expressed by Hodges also have a familiar ring to them. He teaches that the
gospel imposes no moral demands on the life of the sinner. One advocate of faith only
says even if a believer becomes an atheist, he cannot lose his salvation (see MacArthur,
p. 98). Another says that grace is "the Christian's liberty to do precisely as he chooses"
(p. 31). These contentions bring to mind the oft-quoted language of Sam Morris, one-
time pastor of First Baptist Church, Stamford, Texas, who said: "We take the position
that a Christian's sins do not damn his soul . . . all the sins he may commit from
idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger." Albert Garner, well-
known Baptist debater (whom I debated in Ocala, Florida), said: "Baptists teach that a
child of God can do anything he wants to and go to heaven anyhow." Zane Hodges
largely subscribes to the same views.
Although this discussion between MacArthur and Hodges is significant, one must not
assume that MacArthur teaches the complete truth on faith and obedience. He is a
Calvinist and notwithstanding the fact that he often argues inconsistently with his own
theology, he still endeavors to cling to his theological roots. His book makes several
good points, but it still must be read with the realization that MacArthur is striving to
answer Hodges' error without giving up his own. Nevertheless, his book offers a certain
amount of comfort to those of us who have contended that faith without works is dead
and that salvation is through faith which works by love (Gal. 5:6). It is unfortunate that, at
a time when a leading denominational scholar like MacArthur is teaching an obedient
faith for salvation, we have some of our own brethren who are leaning toward the
"cheap grace" theology of Zane Hodges.
—EDITOR
47
 Report of the 1993 Lectureship
his is the lectureship that I look
forward to every year. If I cannot
attend, I buy the book. I have been able to
attend this program off and on since 1978.
For the last two years it has been my
privilege to attend almost the entire lec-
tureship. When I arrived at the Getwell
facility on the Sunday the lectures began,
I chose to avail myself of every lecture
until that last 'Amen' was said on the fol-
lowing Thursday, four days and thirty-
four lessons later. The crowds were larger
this year than in the past few years . . .
The kind of preaching heard there was
powerful, pointed, plain, precise and
positive. It was refreshing, riveting and
reassuring of the hope that all is not
hopeless in these desperate days when
we know all is not well in Zion."—Dennis
Gulledge, Mablevale, Arkansas.
"During the past seventeen years, it has
been my privilege to attend all but two of
the SPIRITUAL SWORD LECTURESHIPS. Like
other lectureships, this year's had the
same common factors that always make it
a joy to make the annual pilgrimage to
Memphis—outstanding preaching, the
warm, loving hospitality of the great Get-
well church, renewing old friendships
and meeting new friends . . . Indeed the
chilling winds of digression are blowing
at full force. Never since the division with
those in the early part of this century
have there been as many voices calling for
change. Whether or not the innovators
are successful will be determined upon
our stand for the cause of Christ . . . 'The
Restoration: The Winds of Change' ad-
dressed issues that are currently facing
the Lord's church. Many great lessons
were presented, but the lesson by Wen-
dell Winkler on the need to "Arouse the
Church From Its Lethargy" was a classic
and needed to be heard by every member
48
of the church! The great elders at Getwell
and their esteemed minister, Jim Laws,
are to be once again highly commended
for the selection of a much-needed theme.
Every eldership across this nation should
see that their minister is able to attend
the annual SPIRITUAL SWORD LECTURESHIP.
Such will strengthen not only their minis-
ter, but the local church as well. The Lord
willing, I hope to see you in Memphis the
third week in October of 1994 at the an-
nual SPIRITUAL SWORD LECTURESHIP."—
Ivie Powell, Paris, Texas.
"This year's lectureship was the best
that I have ever attended. The theme,
'The Restoration: The Winds of Change,'
was timely, the speakers well prepared,
and the attendance encouraging. A stroll
through the parking lot revealed cars
from practically every area of the coun-
try .. . We were made keenly aware of
the urgent needs of the present day.
These include the need to arise from our
lethargy and exercise greater zeal in
the propagation of the gospel. We were
also admonished to return to Bible-
based, soul-saving preaching that empha-
sizes the distinctive nature of the Lord's
church . . . In summary, it must be said
that the lectureship was well thought out,
thoroughly planned and expertly deliv-
ered. We commend the Getwell con-
gregation and the lectureship director for
putting together such an excellent pro-
gram year after year."—Scott Richards,
Jonesboro, Georgia.
EDITOR'S NOTE: You will not want to
miss the 1994 SPIRITUAL SWORD LEC-
TURESHIP. The theme will be: "Women to
the Glory of God." This is certainly one of
the most widely discussed topics in the
religious world today. Make plans to be
present during the third week of October
1994!
 THE SPIRITUAL SWORD
IS GROWING

Once again, every copy of THE SPIRITUAL SWORD has

been depleted and the Getwell church has had to order a
reprint to fulfill the requests for additional copies. The
October 1993 issue on "The Winds of Change" ran out of
stock in approximately sixty days. Throughout the na-
tion, churches and individuals have ordered bundles of
50, 100, or 200 copies for distribution in their area. Let-
ters and calls regarding this issue have been very en-
couraging. Many have said that THE SPIRITUAL SWORD
fulfills a crucial need among brethren today. We deeply
appreciate the abiding confidence and support that
brethren are manifesting toward this work.
The Getwell church is facing a decision at this time
whether to increase our press run. We would like to
print more copies of each issue in order to avoid the
necessity of reprints, but this decision would be much
easier with your help. Why not place a standing order
for a bundle of each issue of THE SPIRITUAL SWORD?
Congregations or individuals could order a bundle of 25,
50, 100, or more to be sent to their address each quarter.
These could be utilized for distribution at the church
building. If you will hold up each issue when it arrives,
and make a simple announcement that "the latest issue
of THE SPIRITUAL SWORD is available," you will be
amazed at how eagerly people will take copies to read.
Your order would also help us to continue this work and
to know how many copies to print. We hope that elders
and church leaders will take up this suggestion and
include a bundle order in your 1994 budget.
We are now in our twenty-fifth year.
We continue to believe that the most effective use of
THE SPIRITUAL SWORD is the congregational plan. Send
THE SPIRITUAL SWORD to every member for only $4 per
address per year. No other journal of this size and qual-
ity can be sent so economically. Please consider using
THE SPIRITUAL SWORD as a teaching medium where you
are. We want your partnership and your assistance
in this work. If you would like to discuss your order,
or need more information, call the Getwell Church of
Christ at (901) 743-0464.