DOES
BAPTISM SAVE?
CHRIST DIDN’T SEND ME TO BAPTISE
WRONG BIBLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST OCCULT BAPTISM
FOREWORD
Most of us in the
west were taken to the Church as a baby when the priest or minister poured
water on us to make us Christians as he said, “I baptise you in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
It is assumed that these words must be said on the authority of Matthew
28:19 which only has Jesus saying baptise my disciples in the name of the
Father Son and Holy Spirit which gives no indication that these words are to be
said or even that baptism can be given only the once!
This rite is the secret of the Church’s power for it is taboo not to have
your child baptised and it gives the Church an excuse for indoctrinating the
child. Vows are taken at baptism on
behalf of the child. The child is
believed to confirm these vows by affiliating with the Church when he or she
gains the age of reason. The ceremonial
reaffirmation of these vows takes place during confirmation. Confirmation confirms the vows. The vows in the Roman Catholic cult take the
form of renouncing Satan and all his works and an affirmation of faith similar
to the Apostles’ Creed. They say they
believe in God and in his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit and the Holy
Catholic Church. In other words, they
are vowing to obey the Church God and Jesus founded. You don’t say by, “I believe in the Holy
Catholic Church”, that you mean you believe that an organisation exists. You believe in more than that, you mean you
believe in and trust in the
Baptism leads to more evil than good for everybody breaks the baptismal
vows and it leads to a general lack of respect for vows. The priest who wants to stray knows that his
baptismal vows are his most important vows and he broke them many times and
enjoyed it. He will not care then if he
meets a woman he would like to break his vow of celibacy with. This vow has to do with celibacy, not getting
married, not chastity. It is hard to see
how a vow that forbids something supposedly good like marriage could be taken
seriously. Vows only make people worse
not better for the man who vows to be chaste and then has sex is worse than the
man who made no vow and was unchaste.
If the practice of baptism especially for infants could be reduced
things, would not fare well for the Church.
That is what this book hopes to set out to do. The Bible, which for Christians is the
teaching of God, point blankly refutes the practice and the attributing of
special power to baptism and so does reason.
If you can’t sleep in case something bad happens to your child without baptism then perform the baptism yourself. There is little harm in that but it is against the rights of the child. It is indeed far worse to take the child to a church for the Church makes you vow to brainwash the child as a Christian and to bring it to it for indoctrination. That is part of the deal. And you have to pay for it as well which is utterly degrading. Remember though by baptising your child you are promising to make the child a Christian for that is what baptism does, it is picturing the washing away of what God forbids and it is done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit meaning you are bringing the child into the authority of God and his Church. That is actually wrong if you intend to let the child make her or his own decisions when she or he gets older.
You hear of Jewish children, Muslim children, Protestant children and Catholic children but you never hear of Republican children or Democrat children. Why should a child who accepts people without labels be made to take a label just because their parents wear it and conditioned into the them and us mentality? At least political labels have some justification for politics tries to be scientific and give the people what they want, inform the people, test the political theory and generally avoid stubborn adherence to dogma. Religion demands adherence to dogma and can’t offer any decent evidence for its claims so the religious label is just taking away childlike innocence to put bigotry in its place.
The labelling of a person as a
Christian just because they were baptised is a true scandal. It just shows a vicious refusal to regard a
person as free to leave the Church and not be considered a Christian in the
eyes of God. It leads to the Roman
Catholic Church considering a baptised person to be a Catholic even if they
were baptised in a
The proverb, “Once a Catholic always a Catholic”, implies that no religion has the power to own its members forever but the Catholic Church. It is offensive and stupid. It refuses to respect the fact that if you don’t believe in a religion you are not a genuine member of it. It is bigoted.
If it is true that baptism erases original sin and the power of evil it follows that if you ensure only a particular race is baptised that race can declare itself superior to other races. A doctrine that could be used to implement racism is evil. It is an insult to those who work against racism.
THE TWO BAPTISMS
The Church of Rome in common with several other religions teaches that
the rite of baptism in water has supernatural power. It teaches that “baptism makes us Christians
(hence its being called christening), members of the Church, takes away
original sin in babies and original sin and ordinary sin (and without
confession too!) In those who have
reached the age of reason and makes us stronger in the fight against sin”. In other words, baptism is a sacrament – a
magic spell that gives grace or power from God to conquer sin and be holy. It is the sacrament of new birth for it makes
us be “born again” into the
Another thing that baptism is supposed to do is confer the power to have
faith in the gospel even when it is an infant that is getting the
splashes. It infuses the gift of
supernatural faith. When the baptised
child grows up the baptismal grace enables her to accept the “truth”. Pity they don’t wonder why so many children just
are not interested!
It is a hell-deserving sin to refuse to be baptised when one believes in
baptism.
The sceptic finds no evidence in the Bible that baptism does any of these
things that it is really a sacrament.
A lot of the confusion among those who argue otherwise stems from the
fact that there are two kinds of Bible baptism.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between baptism in the Spirit and
baptism in water. We read about baptism
in the Spirit, “John baptized with water, but not many days from now you shall
be baptized with (placed in, introduced into) the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). (See also Luke 3:16; Acts 11:15-17). Spirit baptism means immersion for the goal
is to be full of the Holy Spirit. Spirit
baptism is immersion in the Holy Spirit.
It is therefore inane to depend on a verse that just mentions baptism
and doesn’t mention literal water to establish any doctrine about water
baptism.
If the Bible said baptism has miraculous powers it may be Spirit baptism
that is meant for if it meant water baptism it would say so to avert
confusion. But it never hints that it
considers water baptism more than simply a meaningful ritual.
All the texts of the Bible which inform us that baptism in water saves us
from sin and remits it do not mean that it is a magic rite like Catholic
baptism. Christian baptism is a rite of
repentance which has no power of its own but which just removes sin for it is
an expression of sorrow that asks God to take sin away so it is for people who
can make their own decisions just like in any other prayer. The Bible may say that Baptism in water saves
us because it is an appeal to God to keep one from sin so it is an act of
repentance.
Christians who teach that baptism is a sacrament are agreed that the
baptism of John which was for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3) was not a
sacrament for John instructed the people to look forward to a baptism in the
Holy Spirit which would be better. If it
were a sacrament it would confer the presence of God the Holy Spirit for God is
his power and when he gives you his help or grace it is himself that he gives.
THE SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM TEXTS
Here are all the “proof” texts for baptism in water being a sacrament,
that is, a ritual that magically changes you to make you holier and live
better.
* Acts 2:38 says, “They
said to Peter and the rest of the apostles (special messengers), Brethren what
shall we do? And Peter answered them,
Repent (change your views and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves
instead of rejecting it) and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from your sins”.
You can need repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins without
baptism being the cause of the forgiving.
If you are saved by repentance you will make a public expression of it
by being baptised. If you don’t, your
repentance was false.
Does the verse mean this? The word
“for” in it is eis which can be translated because of
(pages, 27-29, 12
It is replied that Peter said that we must repent and be immersed for
pardon. The one particle for (eis) cannot express both for and because of according to
those who support baptismal remission of sins (page 10, Is It Necessary For
You To Be Baptised To Be Saved?).
But maybe what Peter said if you observe the commas, was repent, and be
baptised, for pardon? The punctuation
which was not in the Greek for it was not used in those days changes the
meaning. The punctuation means you can
leave out the “and be baptised” which will make the passage say repent for
pardon. Another possibility leaves out
the punctuation and comes up with a structure of meaning like this. “Go into the bus, and take a seat, and you
will get to
The book of Acts (10) says that the forgiving power of the Holy Spirit
descended on Cornelius and other pagans just for believing the gospel and they
weren’t even baptised! This shows what
the right translation must be. There
Peter says that nobody can forbid water that they should not be baptised who
have received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles have received him (verse
47). It shows the apostles were not
baptising these people to give them the Holy Spirit but because they had
already received the Holy Spirit. It
shows that being born of the Holy Spirit is not the same as being baptised.
If Peter’s utterance in Acts 2:38 did teach Catholic doctrine it wouldn’t
mean the Bible teaches it for Acts is only reporting what Peter said and it
does not say that the sayings in it are infallible. (It could be just the same when Acts 10 told
us that Peter and the apostles erred in their teaching against eating “unclean”
food.) The author could have been
inspired to record it but that does not mean it is God’s word any more than God
inspiring the author of Genesis 3 to write down what the Devil told Adam and
Eve means that the Devil was telling the truth.
I don’t think it would be going too far to say that Peter may have meant
spirit baptism and not water at all.
* Acts 22:16. Paul was instructed by Ananias
to wash away his sins in the waters of baptism by being immersed.
Many Christians instruct us that we should take this verse literally to
be on the safe side and that this proves that this is its meaning. But it is safer not to for God would tell us
if he meant it literally and how could water literally wash away sins and how
could we think the Bible would suppose we could be silly enough to suppose that
it could? The Bible says that some were
saved though not baptised so we will be okay if we don’t get baptised.
Some say that since Paul already believed in Christ by then and got his
sins forgiven in baptism that baptism must be essential for salvation and faith
is not enough. But Paul could still have
had a sacramental baptism to wash away his sins after he got saved. Catholics believe that perfect contrition
removes sins but that does not stop them going to confession to be absolved
though it is not needed.
Ananias called Paul brother before the baptism implying that Paul was already
believed to be a member of the
Even sacramentalists say that washing sins is
symbolism for it is God who removes sins not water. So, water baptism saves from sin in so far as
it is a prayer of repentance. It saves
not because it is a sacrament but because it is a prayer that God hears.
It could still literally mean that water washes away sin for the Bible is
a superstitious book but we will be charitable and not lay much weight on this.
Baptism could wash away sin if it was a sign that one intends that past
sins will not be repeated even if they have been forgiven some time
before. This seems to be the true
meaning for Paul had a few days to turn to God for the remission of all his
sins and would have already been clean when baptised. Paul says that God’s grace changed him when
he revealed Jesus to him in a vision (Galatians 1:15,16).
* Romans 6:1-6. Immersion is immersion into Christ’s death
and into Christ. We are buried so that
we might rise out of it to a new life just like Jesus was buried in the tomb
and rose to a new life.
Nowhere in that chapter does the word water appear. In baptism in the Spirit we bury and immerse
ourselves in the Spirit and die to our sinfulness and rise up in the
Spirit. Jesus died and rose in the
presence of the Spirit and the chapter says the same happens to us in baptism.
The opinion of some is, “If it meant water baptism then it must be a
sacrament when it puts us into Christ.
If we were already forgiven we could not be put into Christ. Nothing else in the chapter indicates a
sacramental interpretation.” Baptism is
a sign of leaving the Christless life behind and
entering Christ in the sense of taking a stand for him. Even if you are saved by faith alone and have
entered Christ as regards being numbered among the saved you will enter Christ
in another sense whenever you turn away from sin by publicly being
baptised. Paul may have meant joining
Christ in this second sense. The people
he was writing to would have taken this meaning if they knew that baptism was
not a sacrament.
Being baptised into Christ’s’ death infers nothing sacramental. We can be united to our father’s death by
doing good to honour his memory.
* Galatians 3:27. This verse tells us that baptism is into
Christ. This is supposed to say that
baptism makes the spirit of Jesus live in you.
You are placed by it into the presence of Christ.
The word for into is eis which is translated
unto in many other places. In 1
Corinthians 10:2, the Bible declares that
* 1 Corinthians 12:13. “For by [means of the personal agency of] one
[Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized
[and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one
[Holy] Spirit”.
This refers to Spirit baptism. All
Christians agree that one can go through a water baptism with an insincere
heart and not receive any grace. It is
worthless and invalid when the candidate is insincere. But this says that all who are baptised drink
of the Spirit so it cannot have water baptism in mind.
* Colossians 2:12, 13. “You were buried with Him in [your] baptism,
in which you were also raised with Him [to a new life] through [your] faith in
the working of God [as displayed] when He raised him up from the dead. And you who were dead in trespasses…[God]
brought to life”.
This links the graces to the faith that accompanies baptism not the
baptism itself. The burial and
resurrection are symbolic for you are buried in baptism and rise again like
Jesus was buried and rose again.
There are no miracle graces inferred by saying that a person dies to the
old life in baptism and rises to a new one.
Some may say that if you have been forgiven before it you have died and
you cannot die again. If valid, this
teaching would mean that you die once and only in baptism, making it essential
for forgiveness. There is no sense in going
that far for death is a symbol of sinfulness.
The Christian dies and rises all the time. But with the interpretation it is inferred
that once you are saved you are irrevocably saved forever.
* Titus 3:5 claims that
baptism is the water of regeneration. It
may call it that because it represents rebirth or because it is a cry for
deliverance from sin. It is birth to a
new life when performed in public for it is telling others not to harm your
fellowship with Jesus and God and that you are serious about putting your old
life behind you.
THE ULTIMATE PROOF TEXT ?
John 3:5. When having a chat with
Nicodemus, Jesus claimed that only a person born of water and the Holy Spirit
could go to Heaven, “Unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he
cannot [ever] enter the
Top of the
Document
CHRIST DIDN’T SEND ME TO BAPTISE
“Christ [the Messiah] sent me not to baptize but to evangelise by
preaching the glad tidings” (1 Corinthians 1:17). A Catholic theologian would say, “This does
not refute the Catholic doctrine. Though
Jesus wants all baptised, Paul was not to baptise the Corinthians because it
would be better left to others. Or perhaps
Paul was not to baptise anybody for it would take him away from his task of
preaching. Christians are not asked to
do what they cannot do. It doesn’t
matter to Jesus who baptises as long as it is done if water baptism is
necessary.” But yet Catholics believe
Christ sent all Christians to baptise according to their interpretation of
Matthew 28:19 where Jesus asks for all nations to be baptised. Paul could be read as if he was not sent to
baptise anybody at all and therefore it should be read that way. If Paul had just meant he was not sent to
baptise the Corinthians for it took too much time he would have said so. Paul wrote that he was glad he hadn’t
baptised many in Corinth because of the divisions they were creating (1
Corinthians 1:14) for some would say they were baptised in Paul’s name not
Jesus’ in order to create schism.
Paul specified that he did not preach with great words or eloquence and
so when he didn’t prepare that much and could not have been preaching all the
time he could have baptised more people.
He would have had the time. This
adds support to the idea that Paul did not think baptism was an essential. He only led a team of evangelists and did not
do it on his own so he had the time to baptise like they had.
Paul wrote that he was thankful that he didn’t baptise many In Corinth in
case any would say they were baptised in Paul’s name for Christ did not send
him to baptise. This tells us two
things, One – he knew that nobody would really claim to have been baptised in
his name so that was sarcasm and not the reason for his thankfulness, Two –
that the real reason was that Jesus had not sent him to baptise. He was reluctant to promote baptism because
it led to trouble. That would be
ridiculous if it did more good than bad. It gives the impression that the early
Christians did not always baptise and when they did only bad came out of
it. The Catholic perversion of baptism
into a magical sacrament would repel him utterly.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he was not sure how many he
baptised. This indicates he was keeping
no records meaning that if this means water baptism then water baptism was not
an initiation rite and certainly not a sacrament that saves for he would have
had to keep records and would have insisted that all baptising people do the
same. The Roman Catholic Church keeps
baptismal records because it believes that baptism saves the soul and makes you
a member of the
It is an error to
argue that water baptism could not be a sacrament or necessary for salvation on
the basis of 1 Corinthians 1:14. There
Paul wrote, “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius”. Many allege that Paul would not have written
this way if it were. But the next verse
gives a reason for this attitude, “Lest anyone should say that I baptized in my
own name”. Paul is only saying that he
is glad that he baptised none of the Corinthians for they would use it as an
excuse for saying that they were for him and not for the other apostles, and as
an excuse for schism. It is perfectly
possible for a priest to believe the Catholic doctrine of baptism and to be
grateful that he did not baptise a child for some reason and that someone else
did it without detriment to his belief or belittling this sacrament. This baptism Paul is thinking of might have
been spirit baptism given by the laying on of hands. It appears that the Church was not baptising
in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit in those days. When Paul could be accused of baptising in
the name of Paul it suggests that some alien language was being used perhaps
Hebrew or Aramaic. Or that nothing was
said at all. Others say that it
indicates that the converts were completely gullible or unintelligent and not
much of an advertisement for the credibility of Christianity when they had set
up the disciples of Jesus as new Jesuses. Others say that in the name of Paul doesn’t
mean that they think they were baptised with somebody saying, “I baptise you in
Paul’s name” over them. Baptism in the
name of Paul means baptised under the authority of Paul.
So this verse
doesn’t seem to refute the idea that water baptism is needed for
salvation. The previous one considered
does. But think of the verse this way. Do you say, “Thank God I didn’t save him by
baptising him in water”. That sounds
totally evil. And blasphemous for God
wants to save. If water baptism saves
then Paul baptising was a good thing even if those he baptised got too attached
to him. It wasn’t the baptisms fault
that they got too attached but their own.
But did he mean, “I’m glad it wasn’t me who was baptising them but
somebody else.” If so then he shouldn’t
have said, “Thank God.” It doesn’t look
like he believed in anything strange about water baptism or even that it was a
good work.
WRONG BIBLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST OCCULT BAPTISM
There are a number of fallacious bible-based arguments that baptism
cannot forgive sins and has no occult powers.
Jesus is supposed to have said in John 3 that nobody knows who is born of
the spirit. He said that like people
born of the spirit the wind goes where it wills and you can hear it and you
don’t know where it comes from. You
don’t know where they come from and will go, meaning go to Heaven or the other
place, for you never know if a person has sincerely responded to the Spirit for
it is often in his or her best interest to pretend to be holy. The Spirit can use a fake Christian to do
good. Jesus really is saying you don’t
know if a person is saved or not. This
is alleged to disprove salvation by water baptism because if salvation and mercy
were obtained by it then we would know who was pardoned. We would not because not everyone who
receives baptism would be genuine. If a
person didn’t want the salvation conferred by baptism that person wouldn’t get
it and would be in need of another baptism for their baptism was invalid. The verse proves that infant baptism is
heretical for if babies are sacramentally redeemed in
the waters then you know they are saved.
Catholics might answer that Jesus is just thinking of adult baptisms but
there is no trace of that in the chapter.
He makes no distinction so we ought to make none either. At that time, nobody was receiving
sacramental baptism so the new birth has nothing to do with it. Nicodemus could not have understood him to be
revealing that baptism in water had magical power.
Where the Bible says that faith in Jesus saves without mentioning baptism
it doesn’t mean that faith alone is enough but only a kind of faith is. The Bible lays it down that repentance is necessary
and that is not faith but it is a part of faith in the Bible
understanding. The faith that saves is
faith in what Jesus told us to do to get saved and proving that faith by
repentance. So, the verses might not
explode salvation by baptism or sacraments or by keeping God’s Law. But when baptism is not commanded by God it
is probably the last thing that would be necessary for salvation.
Acts 4:12 says that Jesus is the only way to God and salvation. This is held to prove that baptism cannot
save for Jesus is the only way. This
does not refute salvation by works or sacraments because when Jesus is the only
way he can grant salvation under certain conditions.
Paul, who taught that grace is the only way to salvation, said that grace
is not grace if it comes from works (Romans 11:6). Some argue that baptism cannot give grace or
save for it contradicts this verse. But
Paul is saying that grace is not grace if you earn it. Grace is a free gift. A free gift is still free if you have to go
and get it. If I have to walk to the
shop to claim a free gift my walking there isn’t trying to earn it. It is the same if I have to go to the
baptismal font. Baptism is a work though
a
Baptism is a work of righteousness.
In Titus 3:5 we learn that we are not saved by works of goodness but are
saved by a washing of regeneration. Does
this disprove water baptism being a sacrament for it is a work meaning that the
washing is just a metaphor for forgiving and/or removing sin from the
soul? The doctrine of sacramental
baptism says that it is not the work of being baptised that saves but God’s
promise to pour grace and salvation into the person who takes the washing. “But we are still saved by a work of
righteousness in a sense”, the critics will bellow. True but did the writer have this sense in
mind? He either meant works that gave
grace like sacraments and repentance or works that earned grace. We don’t know which he meant so the verse
does not disprove sacramental baptism.
But it is most probable that it is not about sacraments at all for it
would make that clear if it was for there is a total difference between
sacraments and trying to buy salvation.
Some argue that the Bible says the blood of Jesus not the sacrament of
baptism cleanses us from sin (1 John 1:7) as if both couldn’t be true. The blood of Jesus does not literally wash
away your sins. The cleansing is only a
metaphor for the blood paying for your sins to get them pardoned and remove
them.
BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION
Many point to Paul’s assertion that the Jewish sacrament of circumcision
was unnecessary for salvation in Romans 4 as proof that it is the same with
water baptism. Paul never mentioned
water baptism in Romans 4 but that makes no difference – we are concerned about
the principle here. He said later in
Romans 6 that in baptism you die and are buried with Christ and rise again with
him which is like what happens in baptism by total immersion in water. But he could speak that way even of Spiritual
Baptism for in it you die as a bad person and rise as a good and saved
person.
Catholic theologians will say that what Paul wrote about circumcision
being useless for salvation fails to rule out water baptism having power to
save. “Circumcision was necessary for
inheriting the MATERIAL blessings promised to Abraham (Genesis 17) but not for
salvation which is SPIRITUAL salvation from sin and Hell and fits one for
Heaven like water baptism does. Baptism
was different so Paul’s stance with relation to circumcision cannot be taken as
a refutation of baptismal regeneration.
If Paul had understood baptism as a replacement for circumcision and
both as mere symbolic rites then neither would be essential.”
Here is something to close them up, “Circumcision does indeed profit if
you keep the Law; but if you habitually transgress the Law, your circumcision
is made uncircumcision. So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the
requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision
be credited to him as [equivalent to] circumcision? Then those who are physically uncircumcised
but keep the Law will condemn you who, although you have the code in writing
and have circumcision, break the Law.
For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one outwardly and publicly, nor
is [true] circumcision something external and physical. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and
[true] circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal [matter]. His praise is not from men but from God”
(Romans 2:25-29).
If you break the law your circumcision doesn’t mean a thing because
circumcision requires you to be spiritually right with God or as it is put here
circumcised in heart.
A man who is uncircumcised but who obeys the will of God is
circumcised. Despite the fact that this
doctrine completely contradicts the Old Testament where God is strict about
physical circumcision we will go on.
Paul means that physical circumcision is just a sign of spiritual
circumcision – in other words, cutting yourself away from evil and sin. He said physical circumcision profits if you
keep the Law so how then does it profit if the real thing is what happens
inside not what happens outside? The
answer must be that circumcision was indeed a spiritual sacrament. Paul by saying physical circumcision of male
babies couldn’t save by itself was certainly denying that baptising babies in
water was any good. He was certainly
denying that baptism is needed for anybody.
Its interesting what happens when you use the same passage but put water
baptism or baptism in for circumcision and unbaptism
for uncircumcision.
“Water Baptism does indeed profit if you keep the Law; but if you
habitually transgress the Law, your water baptism is made unbaptism. So if a man who is unbaptised
keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his unbaptism
be credited to him as [equivalent to] water baptism? Then those who are physically unbaptised but keep the Law will condemn you who, although
you have the code in writing and have water baptism, break the Law. For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one
outwardly and publicly, nor is [true] water baptism something external and
physical. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and [true] baptism is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal
[matter]. His praise is not from men but
from God”.
Would Paul have agreed that baptism was a sacrament? Would he have agreed that water baptism
profits if you keep the Law of God? No
for he never even said it was obligatory.
The baptism he did regard as a sacrament was one administered by God
himself, spirit baptism. It’s a
sacrament, a sign that does what it symbolises, invisible to us but a sacrament
all the same for its not invisible to God.
MEN SAVED WITHOUT BAPTISM ?
People who oppose the sectarian tenet that baptism forgives sins and
there is no salvation without it would argue, “Zacchaeus
was saved without baptism being mentioned.
The thief on the cross was saved from sin without baptism (Luke
23:43). Jesus could have told John to
get a bucket of water and throw it all over him but didn’t for we would have
been told if he did. It wouldn’t have
been fair to make an exception if baptism was needed to gain grace for then God
would have to give the grace to any person who could not get baptised
instantly. Exceptions only prove the
rule when they are reasonable, that is when they are superseded by a more
important rule, and not arbitrary. It
would not be fair to deny the grace of baptism to anybody if they receive
it. We see then that baptism does not
pardon sins”.
Their adversaries would argue, “These men might have repented before and
been baptised. John tells us that the
apostles baptised (4:1,2). John the Baptist
baptised great numbers. In some
unspecified way, these saved men were baptised.” This reasoning is futile for there is no
evidence of any kind for it. It is not
that likely that the thief was baptised when he was a thief and deserved
death.
Some argue that
baptism is essential for salvation now after the death of Christ but since the
thief died before Jesus died he died under the old dispensation that did not
require baptism. But Jesus had been
baptised and the apostles were doing it so if water baptism were necessary for
salvation Jesus could have revealed it and its power before he died. God foreknew he was going to make atonement
and had saved figures in the Old Testament because the atonement was as good as
made. There is no trace of the doctrine
that baptism only became sacramental after Jesus died. Indeed there is no apostolic authorisation
for the notion that it ever did!
As Jesus hung on the cross a thief crucified with him asked him to
remember him when he came into his kingdom.
Jesus replied, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” The thief may have been baptised because John
baptised a lot of people but that is not likely for the thief was a bad godless
man. There is a
Others argue that since Jesus forgave the sins of the cripple (Matthew 9)
and never told him to be baptised or to believe in him that Jesus could before
he made baptism a sacrament give its benefits as he saw fit. But how others ask can anybody say that when
the story itself is only the bare outlines?
There were things said that day that were never put down on paper. The reply to this is that it is simpler to
hold that Jesus just gives forgiveness freely without regard to rites. There is no reason to even think of baptism
while reading the story.
The story makes it unlikely that Jesus would have instituted baptism as a
means to getting sins forgiven. He was
not the kind of person who was more interested in a person undergoing a rite
instead of when they were ready for his mercy.
Forgiveness should be granted to the person who is filled with
repentance and not when they undergo a rite.
Their mental state is more important.
Zacchaeus the infamous and reviled tax-collector was
unlikely to ever have been baptised for he did not care what people thought of
him. He would not have been baptised
just to please others and Jesus had to devote him to some special attention to
save him so he was unlikely to have been capable of ever receiving baptism
validly for you need repentance. He was
pardoned without baptism. You can’t intend to be in communion with God if you
receive a sacrament in sin so you don’t intend to receive it at all.
Paul said that he saw Jesus and was the last to do so like one born out
of due time (1 Corinthians 15:8). It is
likely that Paul means he was born again when he saw Jesus. There had to be a last visionary anyway and
that would not be strange so Paul means something different from him being the
last.
The Catholic Church teaches that a person can be saved by gaining some of
the effects of baptism through a baptism of desire or baptism of blood. If a man desires baptism and dies before
managing to get baptised, he will go to Heaven.
This is the baptism of desire. If
a man gives his life for the faith though he is not baptised he is considered
to get what is called the baptism of blood and he will go to Heaven. The Church stresses that these are not
sacraments and are not equal to baptism but another way to get rid of the sin
that baptism takes away. The Church says
these fit the rule given by Christ that only water shall save for the waters of
baptism still save these people in the sense that it is in deference to baptism
that these saving effects are allowed to take place. The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism
of desire is wholly unscriptural. God
would not like you to say that a sinner can be saved by getting rid of sin
these ways when an innocent and helpless baby cannot be saved without literal
baptism in water. And Jesus could
baptise the people who desire baptism and who have the baptism of blood with
water on entry into Heaven. That he does
not do so is a testament to the doctrine of the blood baptism and the desire
baptism being false. They are supposed
to be allowed by God for water baptism is the only way to salvation but if
Jesus does not baptise the recipients of the desire or blood baptism then water
baptism cannot be the only way. If water
baptism were the only way then the blessings of blood or desire baptism would
arise not from blessings given without a view to water baptism but from
blessings given in advance of water baptism in the same way you might get your
wages before you earn them in view of the fact that you will earn them.
The Church teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation but
that in extreme cases people get the grace of baptism in the baptism of blood
and baptism of desire which are not technically baptisms. They distinguish between the grace of baptism
and the form of the sacrament. In other words, desire for the sacrament gives
you its effects when you are dying unbaptised.
The scenario when somebody runs to a baby with water to baptise it but it
dies first leaving it too late does not fit the rules for baptism of desire.
The baby didn’t desire the baptism but somebody else did but baptism of desire
requires that the candidate of baptism desire the baptism. The baby is in original sin and so doesn’t
like God and so nobody can assume that the baby has a desire to be with
God. Some liberal clergy think that if a
baby dies before its baptism because it was intended for it to be baptised the
baby will be saved and given the powers of baptism without the water. The baby then is saved by baptism indirectly. But this can be said of any baby. Imagine a baby dies without baptism at the
North Pole and there are no Christians within ten thousand miles what
then? The Christians would baptise the
baby if they could so the baby then will be treated by God as baptised though
it is not for it is nobody’s fault the baby wasn’t baptised. This kindly and compassionate idea however is
destroyed by the fact that they think Jesus said water baptism is necessary for
salvation. If nobody was baptising
anybody, babies would still be saved so
how could it be true to say that water baptism saves? It denies the urgency and importance of
water baptism.
A big objection to the view that any baby baptised or not will be saved
by the effects that baptism brings if it dies is that it makes the baby’s death
more important than the state of original sin, the state of being separate from
God.
What is worse for the baby in the Christian view? Dying or having original sin? It is having original sin for that is the
state of being born estranged from God and not liking him – it might not
understand that it doesn’t like God but that makes no difference. If God saves a baby just because it dies then
why doesn’t he save it just because he wants it to like him and to forgive its
original sin? Furthermore, death, even
in babies, is a punishment for original sin according to the apostle Paul in
the Epistle to the Romans in the book God wrote, the Bible. A God then who saves a child because of death
and not because the child is in a state of sin without baptism which is a worse
state is perfectly capable of rejecting a child that died in original sin. And indeed he should for death is not the
worst state and is in fact what the child deserves.
NOT ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION
The Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Christadelphians, Mormons,
Some of these groups regard baptism as a non-sacramental rite that God
requires as a qualification for entry into Heaven or
Mark 16:16. Here Jesus says that
whoever believes “and is baptized” will be saved but whoever does not believe
will not. This no more proves that
baptism is essential for salvation than, “Get on your bicycle and put on your
helmet and you will be in town by six o clock”, proves that wearing a helmet is
necessary for getting to town. If the
saved person will go to be baptised if they are really saved then that could be
the reason why Jesus said those who believe and are baptised will be saved.
It is probable that Mark’s gospel does not intend to mean that Jesus
asked for people to accept water baptism at all. The only baptism Jesus commanded in this
gospel was baptism with the Holy Ghost.
If the author really meant to say that baptism was required for
salvation then he may have meant this baptism which John the Baptist said was
different from baptism in water (Mark 1:8).
When Jesus added that whoever does not believe will not be saved instead
of saying that whoever does not believe and is not baptised it shows that
belief was his chief thought. Baptism as
a statement of belief was related to belief which was why it was
mentioned.
Jesus said he who does not believe will be condemned. There was no need for Jesus to say that he
who does not believe and is not baptised will be condemned because he who does
not believe will not be baptised anyway.
1 Peter 3:21. Just as eight people
were saved by water, baptism “which is a figure [of their deliverance, does now
also save you]” but “not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but
by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience” in the sight
of the Lord. The key to understanding
what this means is in the assertion that baptism is a symbol of the preservation
of the eight from evil by the waters which destroyed all that could corrupt
them. Baptism saves from sin because it
appeals to God for pardon and deliverance from sin and begs the Church to
function as a barrier against for you for you are a serious Christian and to
provide moral support in the face of temptation. Baptism is not said to save from sin in any
other sense. The notion that it actually
forgives sin is absent. Peter is
speaking of those adults who receive baptism with the proper motives,
repentance and trust and faith for even sacramentalists
agree that without these baptism is invalid though they make an exception of
infants. He says that valid baptism
saves for it appeals to God for a pure conscience. This might mean that it saves in the same way
prayer for pardon saves for it is a prayer for pardon. The words do not save nor does the rite but
what is expressed by them does if it is sincere. Prayer is an attitude expressed by words but
not the words which is why saying prayers while thinking of something else is
no good. Baptism has no power in
itself. It is the repentance it
expresses that saves not it.
Paul wrote that baptism saves BY the resurrection of Jesus meaning that
it is a cry to God for salvation to a new life with the risen Jesus and for him
to resurrect the candidate to a new life of holiness.
If infant water baptism were allowed the verse would not say the rite is
for making the person beg for a clean conscience.
The Peter verse tells us that like Noah and his mates were saved by the
flood from evil for the flood wiped out evil on earth we are saved by a
baptismal bath that does not remove physical stain but cleans the soul for it
involves repenting. The people were not
baptised in the flood for they were in the ark and Peter says the same thing
happens with this other bath. He goes on
to say that this other bath does not remove physical stain so it is not a bath
of water but a bath in the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit.
Some say that when Peter said baptism saves not by washing physical dirt
away that he didn’t have water baptism in mind at all. He could speak that way whether he had water
baptism in his mind or baptism in the spirit.
When Peter was asked by his converts what they should do he told them to
repent and be baptised in water (Acts 2:37).
They queried because “they were stung (cut) to the heart”. They desired to be put right with God as
Peter’s answer proves. He would not have
baptised them if he suspected that they did not.
Peter instructed them to repent and be baptised to show it for
salvation. But when baptism expresses
repentance it can save just like kissing a relic to express sorrow can. Peter is not necessarily saying that baptism
is magic and can wash away sins. It is
repentance and God that do that. How
could Peter see baptism as necessary for salvation when in Acts 16:31 Paul and
Silas told the jailer to believe in Jesus when he asked them what he must do to
be saved and never mentioned baptism?
Believe means have faith and faith as understood by the people includes
repentance. The jailer was baptised in
that same hour but that proves nothing.
If baptism was necessary for salvation and they could do it fast then
why did they not tell him to believe and be baptised to be saved? It would be like telling a man to use the gun
without telling him to load it first when he seeks your permission to shoot and
have the bullets at your fingertips. You
wouldn’t do that unless you had no bullets.
Similarly Peter would not have spoken the way he did unless baptism were
just optional.
But if baptism is nothing but a way of showing you are changing your life
then why did Peter command it instead of leaving the expression optional? Because baptism was popular among the
Jews. He wanted the pagans he converted
to undergo the same rite for that and because it was making a public statement
for Christ.
Religions which teach that obedience is required for salvation will have
to hold that baptism is necessary for they say God commands it. But then the New Testament never says that
obedience is a condition for salvation.
It never specifically says that we must be baptised in water. It can be subjectively necessary for
salvation but it can never be objectively necessary though the Catholic Church
vehemently denies that.
In Bible Christian theology which supposes that water baptism is
commanded by God, water baptism is necessary for salvation only in the
following sense. God commands baptism. If you are saved you will obey God and be
baptised for being saved results in good works.
It is indirectly necessary but not directly necessary.
If baptism saved the Bible would command it. Even if the verses that the Church says
refers to water baptism, did actually do so, we still don’t see any command in
them. They might be simply
recommendations.
The doctrine of baptism being a sacrament cannot be traced in the
Bible. The Bible claims to be the only
religious authority for Christians so it is un-Christian to teach that it is a
sacrament.
CONCLUSION
Baptism should be
discouraged. It is not in the Bible and
says many things to us that aren’t nice such as that the unbaptised
are inferior to the baptised. Logic
cannot defend the view that baptism saves the soul but it contradicts it.
WORKS CONSULTED
12
All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree?
Erwin W Lutzer,
Baptism, Meaning, Mode & Subjects, Michael Kimmitt,
K & M Books, Trelawnyd, 1997
But the Bible Does not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet,
Church Book Room Press,
But What About the
Thief on the Cross? Cecil Willis, Guardian of Truth,
Christian Baptism, Philip Crowe, Mobray,
Covenant Reformed News, Volume 7, Number 13, Ballymena, Northern
Four Great Heresies, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Handbook to the Controversy with
Is it necessary for you to be baptised to be saved? Hoyt H Houchen, Guardian of Truth,
Is Water Baptism Essential to Salvation?
Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord, 1988
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts, 1984
Objections to
Roman Catholicism, Edited by Michael de la Bedoyere,
Constable,
Radio Replies, Vol 3, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd,
Regeneration or the New Birth, A W Pink, Evangelical Press, Welwyn,
The Documents of Vatican II, Edited by Walter M Abbott SJ, Geoffrey Chapman Ltd,
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Hodder and
The Only Way of Salvation, H. A. Twelves, Christadelphian ALS,
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas
Howe, Victor Books, Scripture Press Publications,
Why Baptism Really Matters, Fred Pearce, Christadelphian
Publishing Office,
Why Does God? Domenico Grasso SJ,
Why you Should be Baptized, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
The WWW
Doctrinal Summary by Br Thomas Mary MICM. This page informs us that Catholic teaching
is that if you hear of the Catholic Church and don’t join it or study it your
damnation is guaranteed. It affirms that
babies that die without baptism will be banned from Heaven forever.
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible
Friday, 28 December
2007